Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Certificate Examinations

Mr. Corlett: asked the Minister of Education on what date it is expected that the new examination proposals will come into operation; and what arrangements are being made for the interim period.

The Minister of Education (Miss Ellen Wilkinson): As indicated in paragraph 3 of Circular 103, details of the proposed reform of the Higher School Certificate will have to be worked out by the Secondary Schools Examinations Council. I am anxious that the reform should come into operation as soon as possible, but until I have received the recommendations of the Council I cannot give a definite date. Action in respect of the School Certificate must also await the recommendations of the Council. In the meantime, the present arrangements for Higher School Certificate and for School Certificate will continue, subject to the points made in paragraph 7 of the Circular.

Mr. Corlett: While congratulating the right hon. Lady on becoming a learned Lady, may I ask whether she is prepared to say that she will always consult the Secondary Schools Examinations Council before she makes any decision with regard to examinations?

Miss Wilkinson: "Always"Is rather a big word. I might say "almost always."

University Scholarships

Mr. Corlett: asked the Minister of Education what steps she proposes to take to ensure that a fair proportion of the new scholarship provision is spread out among the seven universities and to reduce the present high proportion of State scholars going to Oxford, Cambridge and London.

Miss Wilkinson: The supplemental awards, for which the new scholarship arrangements provide, will be attached to the open scholarships and exhibitions awarded by the several Universities. I am anxious to ensure a better distribution of State scholars among the various Universities, and in the further consideration which I am giving to the question of awards to University students, I will certainly keep in mind the point to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Mr. Wilson Harris: In the event of a State scholar desiring to go to Cambridge or, less comprehensibly, to Oxford, would the right hon. Lady frustrate that laudable desire?

Miss Wilkinson: It is not a question of frustrating the desires of any individuals. The hon. Gentleman will realise that it is really not a healthy state of affairs that, as at present, nine out of every ten State scholars somehow get themselves to Oxford, Cambridge or London. It is only wise, I think, if we are to bring up the standard of the others, that the cream should be more widely spread.

Teachers' Training

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education what percentage of the 14,400 men and women accepted as suitable for training in emergency colleges are ex-Service personnel.

Miss Wilkinson: At the beginning of this month 76 per cent. of the accepted candidates awaiting training were from the Services. This includes a number not yet released from the Forces and excludes a number discharged on medical grounds before demobilisation started, but these represent only a small proportion of the total number of accepted candidates.

Mr. K. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education what provisional training is being given for intending teachers who are still in the Forces; and what allowances are available for ex-Service intend-


ing teachers who have to wait over 12 months before entering an emergency college.

Miss Wilkinson: The educational schemes of the three Services offer a wide choice of subjects from which intending teachers can select. As a. rule candidates are best advised to continue their general education, particularly in those subjects which they desire to teach. Ex-Service candidates who may have 12 months to wait are encouraged to seek employment and no question of a maintenance allowance therefore arises.

Mr. Lindsay: Obviously, I cannot be satisfied that 15,000 teachers arc seeking employment for the first time. As the Minister is terribly worried about it, and to short circuit the whole business, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again when we can have a full dress Debate.

Statutory Orders (Authority to Sign)

Mr. Challen: asked the Minister of Education how many officers of her Department are authorised to sign Statutory Rules and Orders on her behalf; and what are the respective Departmental ranks of these persons.

Miss Wilkinson: It is the practice in my Department for Statutory Rules and Orders to be signed by the Minister or by the Permanent Secretary,. or, in the case of Wales, the Welsh Secretary, or, in the Permanent Secretary's absence, by one of the two deputy secretaries.

Reforms (Staffing)

Mr. K. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education whether the provision of new nursery schools, the opening of county colleges, reduction in the size of classes and the extension of further education still form part of His Majesty's Government's educational policy; and what allowance she is making for staffing in connection with these matters.

Miss Wilkinson: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative; and to the second part that the arrangement for emergency training of teachers and for the expansion of permanent training facilities, referred to in Circular 85, have in view the implementation of the

reforms contemplated in the Education Act, 1944.

Mr. Lindsay: As two weeks ago the hon. Lady said the number of 12,000 teachers was being planned solely for raising the school leaving age to 15, what extra provision is being made for these equally important reforms?

Miss Wilkinson: I have a large number of answers to that supplementary, but I am sure that Mr. Speaker would prefer that I sent them to the hon. Gentleman by letter.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Mails, Malaya

Sir Basil Neven-Spenee: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why it takes up to two months for British newspapers and other material despatched by surface mail to reach Malaya, although ships make the voyage in 18 to 22 days.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): Surface mails for Malaya are sent by direct ship to Singapore, or via Bombay if that route offers advantage. The voyage to Singapore takes from 25 to 47 days, the average being 35 days, and to Bombay from 15 to 25 days, the average being 20 days. To the sailing times must be added the interval between sailings and over the route via Bombay also the interval between sailings from India. I am glad to say that the number of direct sailings to Singapore has recently increased, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that no opportunity will be neglected to improve the service.

Sir Stanley Reed: Is it impossible to have some greater regularity in these despatches, because mail at the present time comes to this country in huge batches, and then there is a big gap?

Mr. Burke: The position is improving. We tried the Bombay route in order to bridge the gap, but we have to depend on the space allotted to us.

Rural Postmen (Clothing)

Sir B. Neven-Spence: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will consider altering the regulations governing the issue of uniforms to rural postmen so that men who do less than 12 hours duty a week may in future be provided with uniforms without having to surrender 26 coupons.

Mr. Burke: Uniforms are not issued to postmen employed for less than 12 hours per week and the question of surrendering 26 coupons does not therefore arise. Such officers are supplied with armlets only, and the issue of uniform is not considered to be necessary. An issue of a waterproof cape and leggings is also made on request on surrender of the appropriate coupons.

Heathrow Airport

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how soon facilities for cable, telephone and postage services will be available for passengers arriving at Heathrow.

Mr. Burke: There are at the moment no premises at the airport in which a Post Office might be set up, but the matter is being actively pursued. Four telephone kiosks will be available tomorrow for passengers wishing to send telegrams or make calls.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that it is highly desirable that the best possible impression should be given to visitors coming to this country from overseas? Could not some temporary structure be quickly erected so that visitors can have these facilities?

Mr. Burke: I am quite aware of the desirability. As the hon. Member will know, the layout of the airport is being redesigned, and we have to wait for that before we can get going.

Redirection of Letters (Flats)

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will give instructions that in all cases letters addressed to occupants of flats shall, on the removal of the occupants, be redirected by the Post Office equally with those of occupants of houses.

Mr. Burke: Occupants of houses and occupants of flats are treated similarly in this matter so far as the circumstances are similar; but when postal packets addressed to flats are distributed, after delivery into a common letter box, by an agent shared in common with other tenants, the Post Office does not undertake redirection save in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Wilson Harris: I understand that the arrangement is convenient, but does the Assistant Postmaster-General think it is satisfactory that redirection of this important class of letters should be undertaken by some anonymous agent over whom the Post Office have no control whatever?

Mr. Burke: Where there are difficulties of this kind we try to meet them exceptionally. The hon. Member will realise the considerable amount of work which is involved in redirection.

Telephone Service

Brigadier Low: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why a man who had a business telephone before the war, but surrendered that telephone when he volunteered for service at the beginning of the war, is now refused reinstatement of that telephone for business purposes on the ground that there is no wire vacant in the vicinity of the house; and whether he will reconsider the matter as, in the case of which particulars have been forwarded to him, there is a vacant wire connected to a pole a few yards from the house of the applicant.

Mr. Burke: I have looked into the case which the hon. and gallant Member has sent to me, and have confirmed that although an overhead wire exists for part of the way, it is not continued in the underground cable and an additional cable must be laid before service can be provided. There is unfortunately a large number of similar cases where new cables are needed, and it is not possible at present to say when this particular cable can be put in hand, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that there will be no avoidable delay.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many miles of telephone wire have been laid and telephone instruments installed ill the last six months in the Parliamentary division of North Dorset.

Mr. Burke: Seventy-six miles of wire have been erected, 343 wire-miles of cable have been provided, and 210 telephone instruments have been installed during the last six months.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that there is considerable feeling that the towns are being provided with important facilities,


while essential services are denied to the countryside—this figure indicates that? Can the Minister take steps through a committee of country people to see that the countryside gets a square deal?

Mr. Burke: Where there are essential services required in country districts by farmers, for example, we do everything possible to meet their needs, and they get a very high priority. The difficulty in the hon. and gallant Member's area is that the exchanges are full to capacity; it is a rebuilding problem.

Night Telegraph Letters

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he can now say when it will be possible to restore the night telegraph letter service.

Mr. Burke: Present conditions in the postal and telegraph service preclude the re-introduction of the night telegraph letter service for the time being. The matter is being kept under periodical review.

Mr. Glossop: Does not the Assistant Postmaster-General consider that the restoration of the night telegraph service would relieve the present congestion in the evenings on the telephone trunk lines?

Mr. Burke: Yes, Sir. It is a question of fitting this in when our current staff are free, and also making it fit in with the night mail service.

Postal Service, Orpington and Sevenoaks

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will make inquiries as to delivery delays of two or three days in the Orpington and Sevenoaks areas; and if he will take steps to improve the service.

Mr. Burke: Yes, Sir, especially if the hon. Member will let me have details of any cases. No recent complaints have been recorded. The question of improving the postal services in the Sevenoaks district is already under active consideration.

Sir W. Smithers: Does the Assistant Postmaster-General realise that it is only local deliveries in this area of 10 or 12 miles where delays occur?

Mr. Burke: I think that it will improve when we get an extra delivery in the day.

Oral Answers to Questions — STREET COLLECTIONS (CHILDREN)

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the important assistance given by schoolchildren on Saturday forenoons in collecting money for Red Cross and other deserving objects, why instructions have been given to chief constables to prohibit such assistance by persons under 16 years of age.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The responsibility for regulating street collections has been placed by Parliament on the police authorities, but the model regulations first issued by the Home Office in 1916 contain a provision that persons acting as street collectors or vendors shall not be under the age of 16, and many authorities have adopted such a provision. The excellence of the object of a particular collection, is not, I think, a reason for abandoning a restriction which in general has been found beneficial for the protection of children.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this kind of mendicancy should be discouraged, especially in the case of children?

Mr. Ede: My attention was drawn recently to the case of two children of about 14 years of age being prosecuted for stealing the results of the collection they made. I communicated with the authority, which had no regulation proscribing such action, and I am glad to say that they have agreed to prohibit future collectings by young children.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSED OPENING HOURS (EXTENSION FEES)

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will circularise justices with a view to remitting the fee for special orders for exemption granted to licensees in connection with Victory Day celebrations and similar occasions.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I think the point is one which I should leave to be dealt with by the licensing justices.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that my object in


drawing attention to this matter is because, with the present shortage of stocks, extensions of hours involve no extra profits for the licensees concerned? Would he not agree it is unfair that they should be involved in expenditure in meeting the public convenience?

Mr. Ede: In view of past experience, I think that we can safely leave that consideration to the licensing justices.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the material being sent out by transport businesses to Members of Parliament?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS

Children

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many foreign children, and of what nationalities, have arrived in this country without their parents to be cared for since VE-Day; and how many more children, and of what nationalities, are expected before the end of 1946.

Mr. Ede: As the answer is rather long and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

1. Children under the age of 16, unaccompanied by parents, admitted for long term periods or eventual emigration.

(a) Distressed Relatives Scheme. About 160 such children are known to have arrived since this scheme was announced last November.
(b) Children from Concentration Camps. The admission of 1.000 orphans from concentration camps under the auspices of the Central Office for Refugees has been approved. Of these, about 740 have already arrived or are expected within the next few days. These children are mostly of Austrian, Belgian, Czech, Dutch, French, German, Hungarian, Polish, Roumanian or doubtful nationality, or stateless.

2. Children admitted in organised parties for recuperative visits, etc.

Schemes for the admission of approximately 11,300 children for visits of a few months' duration have so far been approved in principle. These children are of Austrian, Belgian, Czech, Dutch, French or Greek nationality. Of these about 9,000 have already arrived (1,500 before V.E. Day) and in most cases have completed their visits.

3 Children coming for cultural or goodwill visits.

Various proposals for large numbers of children of different nationalities to pay short visits mainly to private homes for cultural or

goodwill purposes have been put forward and agreed in principle. Many of these visits will be on a reciprocal basis.

Refugees (Naturalisation)

Mr. Drayson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees from Nazi oppression have been granted British naturalisation since 1st January, 1946, and how many of these have served in His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Ede: Since 1st January much preliminary work has been done on claims for priority made on the several grounds which I announced, and a large number of cases are in various stages of advancement. Among the certificates actually granted to those who lodged their applications for naturalisation before November, 1940, it is estimated that about 250 have been granted to persons who can be classified as refugees. They include a few who have served in His Majesty's Forces, but the scheme for dealing with applications for priority on the ground of service with His Majesty's Forces did not come into effective operation until April, and it is only now that the first batches of recommendations from the examining tribunals are reaching me.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the number of certificates granted in the relative period, so that we can see what proportion the 250 bears to them?

Mr. Ede: The total number of naturalisation certificates between 1st January and 28th April, 1946, was 716. That includes all classes of naturalisation. I may say that we are getting the first dribbles at the moment, and I have no doubt that the stream will flow much more freely in a few weeks' time.

Distressed Relatives Scheme

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many distressed persons have, in fact, been enabled to rejoin their relatives in this country under the scheme announced on 13th November, 1945, specifying the numbers admitted from each country on the Continent, from the British zone in Germany, and from the camps for displaced persons in Europe.

Mr. Ede: 924 foreigners have so far been identified as arriving under the scheme for distressed relatives, but large numbers are known to be awaiting transport facilities.


The statistics are based on arrivals at ports in the United Kingdom and do not show the place from which the individuals started their journey.

Mr. Thorneycroft: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, is he really satisfied that the necessary machinery exists abroad to enable these people to take advantage of the appropriate scheme?

Mr. Ede: I am satisfied that the machinery for obtaining visas is adequate. I have no responsibility for the transport facilities, some of which exist or fail to exist in areas over which His Majesty's Government have no effective control.

U.S. Ex-Servicemen

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many U.S. ex-Servicemen have applied for permission to join their British born wives resident in this country; and when he expects that these married couples will be re-united.

Mr. Ede: I regret that this-information is not available. As my hon. Friend knows, special arrangements have been made by the United States authorities to enable wives in this country to join their husbands.

Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say why it is that, when there is a marriage between two people of different nationalities, it is always the wife who is expected to be uprooted and sent to another country, and would not most of these relatively few men be a great asset to this country?

Mr. Ede: I think that the matters raised by my hon. Friend go much beyond those which it is possible to deal with by question and answer.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is it not a fact that there is a shortage of manpower in this country? Why should there be any restriction of this sort?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS

Prisoners' Discharge (Publicity)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) how, and by whom, on or before Sunday last, the date of the forthcoming release of a man of whose

name he has been informed, who had purged his offence, was disclosed to the Press; and if he will inquire into the matter;
(2) if he will take steps to protect convicted persons, who have purged their offences, from the injustice inflicted on them by the disclosure of the time of their forthcoming release from prison and the publication of their names, circumstances of conviction and other details which hold them up to public obloquy and prejudice their rehabilitation as useful citizens.

Mr. Ede: I share the view of my hon. and learned Friend as to the undesirability of publicity of this kind, and I believe that the great majority of newspapers recognise the considerations to which he calls attention and avoid publication of such information. As regards the particular case he mentions, I do not know how the Press obtained its information, but I am satisfied as a result of inquiry that the prison authorities were not in any way responsible. Every care is taken by the prison authorities to see that prisoners are discharged in circumstances which will avoid undesirable publicity.

Mr. Hughes: Would my right hon. Friend consider, in conjunction with the Attorney-General, whether the law of criminal libel could not be invoked in order to punish and restrain that very small section of the Press that acts in this snooping unconscionable and disreputable manner?

Mr. Ede: I am very 10th to take steps that would appear to interfere with the freedom of the Press. I believe that the good sense of the community will, in the long run, sufficiently repudiate the few who are guilty of cases of the kind to which my hon. and learned Friend has drawn attention.

Training and Education

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in planning the new prison buildings which he contemplates, and in adapting old ones, he will provide not only for prevention of and punishment for crime but also for reformation by training prisoners in scientifically equipped workshops, farms, laboratories and libraries to be, on their release, educated and useful citizens.

Mr. Ede: The Prison Commissioners attach great importance to the provision of facilities for training and education for all prisoners whoso sentences are long enough to enable advantage to be taken of such facilities and who are likely to benefit by them. It is the intention in planning new establishments to develop, as much as possible, provision of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — APPROVED SCHOOLS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Departmental Committee on salaries and wages of staffs employed at approved schools and remand homes has presented its Report to him; and if it will be laid before the House.

Mr. Ede: I have received the Report of the Committee and arrangements for its publication are being made. It is not a document which is required to be laid before the House but it will be on public sale and copies will be available to Members in the Library or on application to the Vote Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE REGULATIONS (CONTRAVENTIONS)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total number of prosecutions from August, 1945, to the latest available date for civilian offences committed in contravention of Orders in Council and regulations which were in existence during the period covered but were not in existence in 1938; the total number of convictions; the total number of persons imprisoned; and the total amount of fines and other monetary penalties imposed for such offences.

Mr. Ede: The figures available to my Department relate only to offences against the Defence (General) Regulations and Orders made there under, and do not show the number of prosecutions or the total amount of fines During the period August, 1945, to March, 1946, inclusive, the number of persons found guilty of such offences was 17,110 of whom 14,585 were fined, and 662 sentenced to imprisonment.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the continuance of these Regulations is. stifling national recovery, and will he in the Cabinet try to get them removed as soon as possible?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I cannot admit the first part of the supplementary question. I would point out that the number of prosecutions in 1944 was 143,000, compared with 17,000 during the period in which I have been in office.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S. SERVICEMEN (AFFILIATION ORDERS)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken, pending an agreement with the U.S. Government on the subject of maintenance and affiliation orders granted against members of the U.S. Forces, formerly in this country, to prepare a register of the women concerned.

Mr. Ede: It would be premature to attempt to compile such a register at the present time. I desire, however, to assure my hon. Friend that if any means can be devised by which these women can be assisted, steps will be taken forthwith to see that those concerned are informed how assistance can be obtained.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Foreign Office informed me, a month ago, that the Home Office was now compiling such a register?

Mr. Ede: That statement was certainly not made on my authority.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Arising from that answer, in which the right hon. Gentleman expressed willingness to assist in these cases, is he aware that at Lambeth Juvenile Court on 17th May in the case of a 16-year-old girl, with a month-old child by an American soldier, evidence was given that the American authorities had not replied to a request for information about the father, and will he help the bench of this court and possibly the benches of other courts to get a reply from the American authorities in such cases?

Mr. Ede: In every one of these cases that is brought to my notice, we do all that we can to assist the woman to get from the American authorities any information that appears to be needed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE MEDAL

Major Niall Macpherson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the large numbers of persons entitled, by CD. service, to receive a Defence medal who, through diffidence have so far abstained from making applications for it, he will make a public announcement explaining as simply and clearly as possible who are eligible, how to obtain and fill up the application forms and where to send them, and at the same time expressing the gratitude of His Majesty's Government to those who have given their services and the hope that they will apply for the medal.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As there is reason to believe that all those eligible for the Defence Medal may not yet have heard of the procedure they should follow in submitting claims, I am arranging for a further announcement to be made on the subject. Meanwhile I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing the hope of His Majesty's Government that all those who think they may qualify for the Defence Medal will obtain application forms from any post office, and, if after reading the instructions they consider themselves eligible, will complete the forms as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE ACCOUNTING

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Royal Commission to examine and report upon the present methods of State accounting.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Colonel Hutchison: In view of the fact that by common consent the system is archaic, with which even perhaps the London School of Economics would agree, and leads to many errors, does it mean that this necessary reform is being, held up on behalf of intensive nationalisation, and will the right hon. Gentlemanconsider—

Mr. Speaker: Inferences and imputations in a supplementary question are really not in Order.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the Prime Minister see that the principles and methods laid down in the Cohen Commission for private accountancy shall also

be applied in the case of public accountancy?

The Prime Minister: Obviously this is a matter which wants looking into. Things are not exactly on all fours. I confess I am not clear what was in the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who asked this Question. If he would like to elaborate it to me I should be pleased to go into it.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set up a Departmental Committee on this subject?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Member will address that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Major Bruce: Is not the standard of public accountancy a great deal higher than it is in a number of private concerns?

Oral Answers to Questions — 40-HOUR WEEK

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the statement on the 40-hour week made by the Minister of Labour; and whether this represents the policy of the Government.

The Prime Minister: I assume the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour at the conference of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions on 21st May. So far as I am aware my right hon. Friend said nothing that is inconsistent with His Majesty's Government's policy on this matter.

Mr. Shepherd: In view of the state of British industry, which appears to many to be getting worse and worse each day, would it not be of greater assistance to the community if the Government turned people's minds against the possibility of reducing hours of work?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the hon. Member is misinformed about the state of British industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (DISPLACED PERSONS, RATIONS)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that many displaced


persons camps, in Germany are getting, through official Anglo-German sources, a ration of approximately 2,200 calories per person and that, in addition, weltare organisations of several nations are supplementing this to such an extent that displaced persons are conducting considerable black-market dealings in the surplus foods; and what steps he is taking to remedy this situation.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The basic ration for displaced persons is 1,850 calories per day which is at times supplemented by gifts from such organisations as the American Jewish Relief Organisation and the Polish Red Cross. Special measures have been taken, including camp searches, to detect and prevent black market activities.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (CALL-UP SCHEME)

Mr. James Callaghan: asked the Minister of "Labour if he will now make a statement on the future of the National Service Acts.

Lieutenant Herbert Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to state the future policy of His Majesty's Government concerning conscription.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I will ask my hon. Friends to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of Questions today.

Later—

Mr. Isaacs: The Government have given very careful consideration to the important question of call-up for the Forces in the immediate future. Many of the factors are still uncertain, especially the extent of our future responsibilities in the field of foreign affairs, but the Government consider that young men reaching the age of 18 can no longer be kept in suspense regarding their call-up. They have accordingly decided that as a transitional measure young men called up during 1947 and 1948 shall serve for a fixed period. Those called up during 1947 will serve for two years, and if no unforeseen circumstances arise this period will be progressively reduced for those called up during 1948. Thus men whose service begins in January, 1948, will serve for

two years and those whose service begins in December, 1948, will serve for 18 months.
As by the end of 1946 all fit men between 18 and 30 years of age still in civil life will be in work from which they cannot be spared if essential production and services are to be maintained, the call-up to the Forces in 1947 and 1948 will, with certain exceptions, be confined to men reaching the age of 18 in those years. It is possible that a few men over the age of 18 whose call-up has been deferred may cease to be employed on the work for which they were deferred. In such cases they will be found equally important work. The number will in any, case be negligible and to call them up could not have any effect on the rate of release of those already serving in the Forces.
Deferments on industrial grounds will cease to be granted after the end of 1946, except that in 1947, and later if necessary, call-up may be deferred as at present in the case of men employed in coalmining, agriculture, building and the production of certain building materials.
The Government have been concerned to ensure that apprentices and learners receive a proper and thorough training. With this end in view they have decided that deferment may be granted to young men to complete their training where my Department, through the machinery of the Manpower Boards, is satisfied that a genuine and satisfactory apprenticeship exists. Others in a similar position to apprentices will be treated in the same way.
Men already serving in the Forces at 31st December, 1946, will be released according to the existing age and length of service scheme. All such men will be released before the end of 1948, that is, before any of the men called up in 1947 are released. Moreover, the Government will aim at releasing during 1947 all men called up before 1st January, 1944.
In order to lessen the needs of the Services for men, it has been decided to call for recruits for the Women's Auxiliary Services to volunteer for a period of not less than two years. It has also been decided to continue the W.R.N.S., the A.T.S., and the W.A.A.F. on a voluntary basis as permanent features of the Forces of the Crown.
The Government have endeavoured to make the scheme as flexible as possible in order to allow for the many uncertain factors arid to enable adjustments to be made in either direction if unforeseen developments should arise. A White Paper setting out the proposals more fully is now available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Churchill: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any forecast or estimate of the numbers of young men who will reach the age of 18 in the years 1947 and 1948? That must be available from the population statistics.

Mr. Isaacs: If the right hon. Gentleman would permit me, may I put it this way —that after allowing for any volunteers and for deferments and the unfit, the number estimated to be called up in each year is 190,000.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask whether we can take it that educational and welfare facilities in the Forces will be pressed on with as much as possible during this period?

Mr. Isaacs: I am very pleased to be able to say that the Service Departments have very readily agreed to extend and develop as much as possible educational facilities. Especially we shall make it a feature in the women's Forces that, in addition to having their general service training, they will receive training such as typewriting and so on which will enable them to be useful members of the community after their service.

Mr. R. A. Butter: Can the right hon. Gentleman add to his statement by saying whether university students, those who are specialised scholars, and others will be included in the term " learners " and treated as apprentices; and can he say whether apprentices and those whose service is deferred will be able to put in any part of their service during the apprenticeship and so not have to serve the full period afterwards?

Mr. Isaacs: With reference to students, I think I might direct attention to paragraphs 10, n and 12 of the White Paper. The arrangement for this year is as announced on 30th April. Definite arrangements have not been made for next year, but it is hoped to make the same arrangements. The term " apprentices " covers learners and others who are

taking a technical education as well as apprentices. As to their taking some training during that period, for the time being it has been decided to continue these present arrangements and not to make deferments conditional on something else, otherwise men deferred on some grounds would be expected to take some training and men deferred on other grounds would not.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the momentous declaration made by the Minister of Labour and the fact that some of us expected this Government to abolish conscription, at any rate 12 months after the end of the war, is it intended that the Government should bring a Motion before the House for debate so that the House can vote on this very important question of extending military conscription in this country for another three and a half to four years?

Mr. Isaacs: The question of debate is not a matter for me, but as to this extended conscription for three and a half to four years, this relates only to the end of 1948. I have already indicated that it is an interim decision. This does not apply to any longer period.

Mr. Henry Strauss: May I ask whether the Minister can supplement his statement in two respects? Since the maximum new period for conscription is two years, could the Minister give an assurance that young men and women already conscribed in the Forces will not be held for periods greatly in excess of that, and, in particular, that those accepted for a university course will not be held beyond the third September after enlistment?

Mr. Isaacs: All we can do is to express hopes in the matter because of the uncertain factors on which the decision has to be made, but it is hoped, as I have said, to get everybody out who is now in before the first of these others come out, and that it may not be necessary to extend this period of service. Some indication is given of the hopes of the Government in this matter by having started with a two year period. Before that period comes to an end it will, in fact, have been reduced to 18 months.

Mr. Churchill: When the right hon. Gentleman said that university students would be treated in the same way as apprentices, subject to the limiting words


he used, "If employed in technical studies,"I presume that does not exclude other forms of university education apart from the purely technical?

Mr. Isaacs: No; what I wanted to convey was that in addition to the arrangement already made for students, those lads who are not students in the ordinary sense, who have not become apprentices but are going to a technical school, having technical education, will be given the same cover. It is an extension and not a restriction.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is any provision being made for some revision in the rates of pay of the Women's Auxiliary Services, all of which have been completely left out in recent statements on that subject?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, that matter is under consideration.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether there has been any change in policy with regard to men whose wartime reserved occupations have come to an end? I think he said they would now be found alternative work. Would not it be most undesirable that they should not be called up for military service unless on essential work?

Mr. Isaacs: No, the point is that, just as it was necessary to reserve these men when the country's need for fighting men was so very acute because they were of such value to industry, so today they are still of great value to industry, and it will be the purpose of the Ministry of Labour to ensure that they take on their proper work and go on to work in essential industry. I think it will be found that there is sufficient latitude here so that if they do not play the game it will still be possible to capture them.

Mr. Wilkins: Will the Minister say whether, if the present drive for voluntary recruitment into the Services is successful, this proposal will be subject to revision?

Mr. Isaacs: Not this side of the proposal, but if the voluntary recruiting scheme which will be put on foot very soon is successful to the extent that it brings in more than we anticipate, that will be used to release more of these men who have already served and not to reduce the numbers called up.

Mr. Grimston: In operating this scheme in the transitional period, will a deferred student or apprentice, when called up, serve for the period that is in force at the date of his calling up, or will he have to serve for the period which was in force when he would have been called up if he had not been deferred?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Gentleman has made himself clear, but I must admit that he has caught us out on something about which I cannot give an actual answer, but I think the commonsense of the thing would be that, having regard to the date of deferment, he would be called up under conditions appropriate to the time when he is called up.

Mr. Swingler: Did I understand the Minister to say that there would be no general deferment of apprentices in the engineering trades except in special cases? Does he realise the serious position of apprentices in the engineering trades? May I at the same time ask the Leader of the House whether there will be an early opportunity of debating this subject?

Mr. Isaacs: It is very difficult, I know, for Members to follow this, not having seen the White Paper, but apprentices in the engineering trade, as apprentices, will have their right of deferment. They will be deferred as apprentices and not as engineers. This deferment applies to everybody but the trades I mentioned where deferment now applies to industries and not to apprentices.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: Will the Government do everything possible further to improve the conditions of pay and the general conditions of service in the Armed Forces, so that we may get the maximum number of people by voluntary recruitment, and thus do away with conscription eventually?

Mr. Isaacs: It is within my recollection, I think, that quite recently there was considerable improvement made in pay and conditions of service.

Mr. Stephen: Will the Leader of the House give an opportunity to discuss this matter on the Motion in the names of the hon. Members for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and myself on this matter?

[That this House calls upon the Government to make an early declaration concerning the ending of compulsory military


service, which was alleged to have been imposed upon the people of this country in a grave emergency in order to defeat the forces of Hitlerism; is of the opinion that, as this aim has been accomplished, the people of Great Britain are desirous of returning to prewar freedom; considers that it would be a betrayal of the living and dead if conscription should be maintained, and, if the Government is in any doubt about public opinion, calls for the submission of the matter to a referendum of the people.]

This would provide an opportunity for discussing the White Paper.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I think it would be more convenient if I dealt with the question when we reach the Business of the House.

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on the Business for next week?

Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that I and others have not yet asked our questions?

Mr. Speaker: Not everyone who gets up is called.

Mr. Piratin: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was up.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member represents a small party, I will allow one supplementary question.

Mr. Piratin: Thank you, Sir. I want to ask two questions within the one supplementary. First, would the Minister ensure to his very utmost that young men who are called up for the Services shall be put into such sections as to be able to continue their trade, a thing which is not operating to its full extent just now? Second, would he make a statement, either now or later, about the call-up for some form of national service of those young men who have not passed the medical examination for the Army or other such Service?

Mr. Isaacs: With reference to the second part of that supplementary question, I do not think it quite arises out of this statement. I am dealing only with the call-up for the Services. With reference to the first part of the supplementary,

I did, in some way, refer to it earlier, but every effort will be made to give a young man the right to express a preference for the Service of his own choosing and to get him there if possible. If he is a tradesman and goes into a Service where that trade can be used, provided there is a vacancy, it is the intention of the Services to put him to that trade. We are very anxious for those who do not take their deferment to make the best possible use of studying their trade while in the Services.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker, the one Army which has not been mentioned is the Women's Land Army.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed one suppletary and no more.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Teachers' Training (Candidates)

Major N. Macpherson: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking in conjunction with other Ministers to ensure the employment of successful ex-Service applicants for training as teachers, in view of the long delay of a year or more which may elapse before they can commence their training.

Mr. Isaacs: All the resources of my Department are available to help these candidates to find employment during the waiting period. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has suggested to local education authorities that they should, where practicable, employ candidates as temporary teachers or in other capacities. My right hon. Friend is, for this purpose, sending to each local education authority a list of the accepted candidates living within their area.

Major Macpherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the candidates who are waiting are being encouraged to take up work in the Control Commission and elsewhere?

Mr. Isaacs: I would not like to say the Control Commission, but what vacancies there are at our disposal are brought to their attention.

Wigan

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons are unemployed at Wigan; and what percentage' that number is of the population.

Mr. Isaacs: At 8th April, the latest date for which figures are at present available, the number of unemployed insured persons aged 14 years and over, suitable for ordinary employment, on the registers of employment exchanges and juvenile employment bureau in Wigan was 3,100. This represented 7.9 per cent, of the estimated insured population at July, 1945, as indicated by the number of unemployment insurance books exchanged at the same offices.

Sir W. Smithers: Could the right hon. Gentleman persuade His Majesty's Government to remove as many regulations as possible and give a free rein to free enterprise, thus speeding up the absorption of these unemployed?

Mr. Isaacs: I can only say that I am in contact on this matter with the hon. Member who represents Wigan (Mr. W. Foster).

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that heavy unemployment in the Wigan area, part of which is in my own constituency, was caused, during the last 25 years, by private enterprise?

Mr. H. Hynd: Before the right hon. Gentleman removes any more of these Regulations will he have regard to the chaos now facing the United States of America?

Newchurch Hall, Warrington (Notice)

Sir Robert Young: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that an unsigned notice has been posted up at New-church Hall, Warrington, informing residents that persons not bona fide State servants will not be accommodated after 22nd June; whether this notice applies to agricultural and colliery workers resident there and, if so, whether they will be at liberty to return to their homes in other parts of the country, unless alternative accommodation is provided for them, seeing many of them are governed by the Essential Work Order.

Mr. Isaacs: I understand that the notice referred to was incorrect. All residents not employed by Government Departments

are being informed that they will have to leave during the summer and after the end of June will be liable to be given a week's notice. It is not intended to ask them to leave at once and in so far as the residents affected are transferred industrial workers we shall render them assistance towards finding alternative accommodation so as to obviate the difficulties which the hon. Member foresees.

Sir R. Young: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that in future such bewildering notices are not issued and posted unless they are signed by an authoritative person, and will he also make it clear that notices will also be sent to individuals?

Mr. Isaacs: I am not aware who posted this notice. It might have been anybody.

Hosiery Trade (Dispute)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the employers' side of the National Joint Industrial Council of the hosiery trade, having failed to negotiate an agreement with the National Union of Hosiery Workers to replace the Essential Work Order, have requested that the dispute should come be fore the National Arbitration Tribunal, but the hosiery workers' executive, instead, are taking a ballot and recommending a strike; and what action he proposes to take in this matter before there is a stoppage in the industry.

Mr. Isaacs: I am aware of the difference which has arisen on the National Joint Industrial Council of the Hosiery Trade, and of the subsequent developments. I have invited the parties to attend a meeting under the auspices of my Department to consider the best means of securing a satisfactory solution of their difficulties.

Mr. Osborne: Does the Minister agree that it is very regrettable that strike action should be taken before the National Arbitration Tribunal sits, and will he do his best to get the strike notices withdrawn before its meeting?

Mr. Isaacs: Strike notices have not yet been tendered. The strike ballot has not yet been taken.

Shop Steward's Dismissal, Liverpool

Dr. Segal: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the circumstances


that led to the dismissal of a shop stewards' convenor at Messrs. Napier's Works, Liverpool.

Mr. Isaacs: I understand that on 10th May the convenor of shop stewards at this establishment was dismissed following the calling of a meeting during working hours which the Management had previously stated they would regard as a breach of Works Rules.

Dr. Segal: Was this firm compelled to resort out of hand to this clumsy, summary dismissal, and could not wiser counsels have prevailed and alternative methods of action been taken?

Mr. Isaacs: I am not in the confidence of the firm and I do not know what prompted them to take this course. I only gave an answer to the Question which the hon. Gentleman put down, but I can say that, using what influence I have through my Department, I have tried to get the thing settled without further trouble.

Dr. Segal: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shop stewards committee of Messrs. Napiers state that the true reason for this dismissal is the personal pride of the manager, and the fact that certain quarters have already decided it is an appropriate time for cutting down the favourable scale of wages.

Mr. Isaacs: May I answer that question by saying this without offence—it would greatly help in the adjustment of these disputes in industry if workers themselves went to their trade union officials and not to Members of Parliament.

Polish Settlement Scheme

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Labour whether any assurance has been received from the trades unions that they will raise no objection to Polish ex-Servicemen who settle in this country being employed as miners and in other skilled trades.

Mr. Isaacs: The Government have the support of both sides of industry in their scheme for the settlement of members of the Polish forces and a sub-committee of the joint consultative committee of representatives of the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation is to be appointed to help in working out the details of the scheme.

Mr. Keeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any difficulty has arisen on the part of the Mine Workers' Union, as has been suggested in the Press?

Mr. Isaacs: I should have hoped that the statement that I made that there was cooperation on both sides of the central organisation of this industry, would have been satisfactory for the time being.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Are we not short of labour and would not the Poles be very acceptable labour in this country?

Mr. Isaacs: That is a question the joint committee has been established not to stop but to help.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITIES (WOMEN)

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a further statement regarding the admission of women to mixed universities and colleges.

Mr. Isaacs: I must make it clear that the admission of women to mixed universities and colleges is a matter for final determination by the university and college authorities. Vice-Chancellors with whom the question of the admission of students this autumn was fully discussed have, however, accepted the view that students in the first priority classes should not be excluded by women who are not of exceptional promise. In cases where universities may wish to apply the 10 per cent, limit to men who have not yet undergone their military service, they will do so after having settled the places which in their view should be reserved for women. I have again been in touch with representatives of universities and have every reason to believe that the universities will deal with applications from women in the same way as they will deal with those received from men.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Food Subsidies

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the index figure for food and the index figure for the cost of living would be without the food subsidy of £335,000,000.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Without the subsidies, and


assuming no change in costs, the food index figure would be about 60 per cent, and the cost of living, index figure about 55 per cent, above the prewar level.

Double Taxation (Sweden)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the preliminary exchange of views which have been taking place between the United Kingdom and Sweden on reciprocal agreements to avoid double taxation between the two countries.

Mr. Dalton: There has, as yet, been no exchange of views on the subject.

Mr. Osborne: Is it proposed to have an exchange of views on this matter?

Mr. Dalton: It is one of the matters we hope to discuss. I do not think it is one of the most urgent, but we should, naturally, like to get agreement on double taxation with Sweden, as with all other countries. I hope we shall take up the matter in due course.

Local Loans (Interest Reduction)

Mr. Mallalieu: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be able to reduce the rates of interest charged to local authorities for loans from the Local Loans Fund.

Mr. Dalton: I propose to make substantial reductions forthwith. For loans advanced from the Fund to local authorities on and after the 1st June, 1946, the rates will be:
Loans for less than 5 years, 1½ per cent.
Loans for more than 5, but less than 15, years, 2 per cent.
Loans for more than 15 years, 1½ per cent.
These are lower rates of interest than have ever been granted before to local authorities for housing schemes. I do not propose to ask for any immediate reduction of housing subsidies, but the reduction of interest rates will, of course, be taken into account when we review the subsidies at the end of this year.

Mr. McEntee: Can my right hon. Friend say whether local authorities will be permitted to choose the period of their loans?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. If they are borrowing for long term purposes, for instance, for the construction of houses, it would be inappropriate finance that they should borrow for only five years. I think they ought to be very satisfied with what I have said, because they will now have to pay only 2½ per cent, for long term loans.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the rates involve any element of subsidy from the Treasury, or are they rates at which the Treasury can borrow from the public?

Mr. Dalton: They are rates at which we can borrow and cover our costs.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Disability (Demobilisation Leave)

Major Beamish: asked the Minister of Pensions whether his regulations provide that a Service man or woman who develops a lasting illness or receives an injury resulting in some permanent disability while on demobilisation leave shall be pensionable in the same way as if such illness developed or injury was received on some previous period of leave during their service.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Wilfred Paling): Command Paper 6459 of July, 1943, laid down that accidents sustained whilst actually on leave could not be regarded as attributable to service, and this principle applies equally to demobilisation leave. As regards illnesses, the position is that if the illness was attributable to, or aggravated by, war service it would be pensionable, but not otherwise.

Claims and Awards

Mr. Thomas Macpherson: asked the Minister of Pensions (1) how-many applications for pensions have been received from Servicemen, ex-Servicemen or their dependants from the outbreak of war to the end of April, 1946, or the latest available date; and how many of these applications have been refused;
(2) how many men and women have been invalided from the Forces since the outbreak of war to the end of April, 1946, or the latest available date.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: As the answer is long I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

When a person is invalided from the Forces his documents are automatically referred to the Ministry, irrespective of whether he claims that his entitlement to pension should be considered. A person transferred to Class W of the reserve or discharged on other than health grounds is however required to make a formal claim to pension.

Detailed figures for the various categories are not available, but the total number of officers and other ranks dealt with under all heads is approximately 720,000. Awards have been made in nearly 315,000 cases. Of the balance of cases where no award has been made, in over half the man concerned has at no time made or inferred anything in the nature of a claim

Persons released from the Forces are also required to submit a claim and 64,000 such claims have been received, awards have been made in nearly 42,000 oases, 10,000 claims have been rejected and 12,000 are under consideration.

About 130,000 claims have been received from widows or on behalf of orphans and awards made in nearly 118,000 cases. So far as dependants are concerned, 84,000 claims have been received and nearly 39,000 awards made. In addition, in 37,500 cases entitlement to pension has been conceded leaving 7,500 cases where entitlement has been rejected.

Nurses (Ministry Hospitals)

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions how many sisters and nurses are there in the service of his Department who have served for 10 years or more and 20 years or more, respectively; at what age they will retire; and what pensions they will receive.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Fifty-six charge and nursing sisters have more than 20 years' service, and 12 between 10 and 20 years. Sisters are not normally retired before the age of 60, and may be retained up to 65. All are insured under the Contributory Pensions Acts. In addition, nearly all participate in the Federated Superannuation Scheme for Nurses and receive annuities or lump sums assessed according to their rank, age on retirement, and length of membership of this scheme. The very few who do riot participate receive gratuities on the scale laid down

in Article 783 of the Pay Warrant, 1940, for members of Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service Reserve.

Sir I. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some of these hospitals there are a good many ladies who are getting on in years, and who will shortly have to go out, after 20 years' service, with only £25 or £30 per annum?

Mr. Paling: I am aware that there are some.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about it?

Mr. Paling: ; There are various ways of dealing with it. In 1935 a superannuation scheme was brought into operation, but not everybody has been able to take advantage of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Hospital Staffing

Osborne: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the medical superintendent of the county infirmary, Louth, is unable to take further responsibility for the proper treatment of patients because the hospital is understaffed; that a petition has been signed by all he sisters against the long hours they are having to work and there is a danger of admissions having to be restricted; and what can he do immediately to relieve the position.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): My right hon. Friend knows this hospital is understaffed, and that it has been necessary to close 40 beds. The main need is for more trained nurses, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and my right hon. Friend are doing everything they can to help; but, as the hon. Member is aware, there is a shortage of nurses throughout the country.

Mr. Osborne: Is the lion. Gentleman aware that many small county hospitals feel that they are not getting a fair share of the new nurses who are coming forward, as compared with the large hospitals in the cities? Will he look after the interests of the smaller hospitals?

Mr. Key: A recruiting campaign for student nurses, covering the Louth area, is about to be launched.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that much of the shortage of nursing staffs in hospitals is due to lack of accommodation for them, many hospitals having lost nurses' homes through enemy action; that billeting accommodation is becoming more difficult to obtain because of the return of members of His Majesty's forces; and if, in view of his published New Deal for Nurses, he will consider giving some priority for the erection of nurses' homes.

Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend is aware that shortage of accommodation is in some cases increasing the difficulty of hospital authorities in obtaining adequate nursing staffs. The erection of new nurses' homes is seriously handicapped by the present shortage of building labour and materials and the demands of housing, but my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider what can be done in any case of special urgency.

Mr. Leslie: While we can all understand that houses for the people should have priority, would my right hon. Friend not agree that the care of the sick and disabled should also have priority, because if the nurses cannot get homes we shall not get the nurses?

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir, and as I have said we shall be prepared to give special consideration to special cases of urgent need on that account.

Mr. Bossom: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if bricks are in short supply?

Mr. Key: That is another question.

Tuberculosis Allowances

Mr. David Jones: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to say what additional provision is to be made for granting to tuberculosis cases an allowance additional to the new rates of benefit envisaged in the National Insurance Bill; and is it the intention to extend the wartime provision of allowances to all types of tuberculosis cases.

Mr. Key: This matter is under consideration, but my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Steel Houses

Mr. Lavers: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that there will be adequate supplies of steel for the

proposed steel houses without causing undue interference with other valuable industries that depend on supplies of sheet steel and steel plate.

Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend presumes that my hon. Friend is referring to the B.I.S.F. houses, the programme for which has been carefully worked out in relation to the availability of the materials and components required. My right hon. Friend is aware that supplies of steel sheet are restricted, but he believes that it will be possible to meet the B.I.S.F. house requirements without prejudicing other demands of comparable importance.

Mr. Lavers: My hon. Friend has referred specifically to B.I.S.F. houses, but is he aware that I am concerned with factories where redundancy is imminent, and where other steel houses could be made?

Mr. Key: The B.I.S.F. house is the only one which, so far, we have contemplated putting into production.

Equipment Standards

Mr. Lavers: asked the Minister of Health whether his Department have yet decided what standard equipment will be fitted to, or permitted in, the interiors of houses which are to be built by local authorities; and how much of this equipment will be made by the Government in ordnance factories situated in the development areas.

Mr. Key: The equipment to be provided in permanent houses built by local authorities is that recommended in Housing Manual, 1944, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, which lays down general standards prescribed by British standard specifications, but allows freedom of choice among articles complying with these requirements. As regards the production of housing fitments in Government factories, I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) on 21st May.

Mr. Lavers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that both employers and representatives of the trade unions in factories engaged on this work are concerned because they allege that either the Ministry of Works or the Ministry of Health cannot make up their minds as to the


type of fitments they require, with the result that local authorities are experiencing a shortage?

Mr. Key: It is left to local authorities to make up"Their minds as to the particular types of fitment they require. Arrangements have already been made for the wholesale production of a very large number of fitments.

Prefabricated Permanent Houses

Mr. Lavers: asked the Minister of Health whether he has finally decided which types of prefabricated or partly prefabricated permanent houses are to be built; what contracts have been placed or are contemplated; and with whom have contracts been placed.

Mr. Key: Local authorities may submit proposals for building any type of permanent prefabricated house and their proposals are considered on merits, provided that they are technically sound and the costs are reasonable. Special steps are being taken to ensure that two types of these houses are available in large numbers, the B.I.S.F. house for urban areas and the Airey house for rural areas. Negotiations are proceeding to extend these arrangements to other types of houses which are now going into production.
As a rule, contracts are placed by local authorities with contractors or with the sponsors, and local authorities have already arranged for the building of houses on the Orlit, Easiform, Cussins, Wates, Hitchins, Leeds and Steane systems. A small contract for' Howard houses was placed by the Government with Messrs. John Howard Ltd. and the Government are arranging with manufacturers for the production of certain components of the Airey Rural house.

Mr. Bossom: Would the Minister say whether the latest type of Maycrete house is approved?

Mr. Key: So far as my information goes, not yet.

South Cave, Yorkshire

Mr. Glossop: asked the Minister of Health the contract price of each of the 12 prefabricated houses now being built at the west end of South Cave, East Yorkshire; on what date was erection com-

menced; when will a supply of water be laid on; and what is the cause of the delay.

Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend is not in a position to give the cost of particular temporary houses. The erection of the houses began on 4th April and eight of them are now ready to receive equipment. The delay in providing a water supply was due to difficulty in obtaining six inch pipes. Delivery of the pipes has now begun and the work should be complete by the end of June.

Mr. Glossop: Although eight of the houses are now ready for equipment, does not the Minister consider that the country would welcome a rather speedier completion of these houses instead of the inordinate delay which has taken place on this estate and on many others in the country?

Bathavon Council (Complaint)

Mr. Farthing: asked the Minister of Health what complaint he has received from the Bathavon Rural District Council Housing Committee, Somerset, as to the cumbersome machinery causing delay in their housing programme and progress and what answer he has returned.

Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend does not appear to have been sent any such complaint.

Mr. Farthing: Will the Minister "make inquiries into this matter, because a public statement has been made and I am anxious to be assured that everything has been done in order to expedite the housing programme of this country?

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir, we have made special inquiries to see if we could find out whether any such complaint had been lodged, but have been unable to trace it.

Building Materials Priority

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that the system of W.B.A. priority symbols is operating in such a manner that work already begun must remain unfinished and that essential repair work, however urgent, cannot be started; and whether he will take steps to clarify the situation, both as regards builders and builders' merchants.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlinson): Work that is not included in the priority category can draw upon


materials which are surplus to the priority demands. In addition I have made special arrangements both for cases of uncompleted work where undue hardship might otherwise arise, and for certain essential repair work. These arrangements have been announced publicly and have also been notified to builders and merchants by their representatives. I hope that this will overcome most of the difficulties my lion. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whatever the arrangements may be, materials do not seem to be available for the priority scheme, with the result that urgent work is at present being held up because no materials are available and the people concerned cannot get them without a licence?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is not that information has not been made available, but that questions have been raised where the material has not gone to the individual concerned. Generally speaking, Where W.B.A. priority is in operation there has been no difficulty at all and in the special categories, now that the information has been sent round, we are meeting very few complaints.

Colonel Clarke: Is the Minister aware that this system is threatening at the present time to produce the deplorable result of a number of unemployed in the building trade?

Mr. Tomlinson: That has been hinted at on many occasions, but it has been found that as yet there is no justification for this statement.

Cheltenham

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Works if he will arrange for a further supply of temporary houses to be sent to Cheltenham in June.

Mr. Tomlinson: I regret that this will not be possible. Subject to special consideration for the needs of severely bombed towns, deliveries of temporary houses are being made as nearly as possible in the order in which sites were made available by housing authorities. In fairness to other housing authorities it will, therefore, not be possible to deliver more temporary houses to Cheltenham before August.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Is the Minister aware that there are 7,000 homeless families in Cheltenham and only 17 houses have been built since Labour began to get things done?

Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot confirm those figures offhand, but I should imagine, from what has taken place in different parts of the country, that the position in Cheltenham is not nearly so bad as some places in other regions.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (FAMILY ALLOWANCES)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that relieving officers are receiving instructions to take family allowances into consideration when assessing public assistance payments; and whether, as this will prevent the benefit of family allowances being given to those who are most in need of them, he will take all necessary measures to ensure that the intention of Parliament that all mothers shall benefit from the new allowances is fully implemented.

Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend is aware that instructions have been given as stated in the Question, but these instructions are in accordance with the Poor Law and Family Allowances Acts and he is, therefore, unable to interfere with them.

Mr. Hynd: Is my hon. Friend aware that this will cause surprise and disappointment, that it is repugnant to relieving officers to have to administer such instructions, and that it is contrary to the spirit in which this Act was passed by the House?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH (STATUTORY ORDERS)

Mr. Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Health how many officers of his Department are authorised to sign Statutory Rules and Orders on his behalf; and what are the respective departmental ranks of these persons.

Mr. Key: The number of officers authorised to sign Statutory Rules and Orders on my right hon. Friend's behalf is 41. These officers hold the rank of secretary, deputy secretary, under-secretary, principal assistant secretary or assistant secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY FORMATION COLLEGES (OFFICERS)

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now make a statement regarding the pay of instructors in formation colleges.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger): Yes, Sir. It has now been decided that officers who are instructors in Formation Colleges will receive the staff supplement to pay from 1st April 1946.

Mr. Harris: Is the Minister aware of the great satisfaction that this act of justice will give?

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA (FRONTIER AREAS)

Mr. R. A. Butler: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Burma whether his attention has been drawn to the announcement made by U. Saw on the subject of the administration of the frontier areas in Burma; and whether he will give an assurance that no change in the proposals in the White Paper on Burma are contemplated in this respect.

The Under-Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I have seen a Press report of a statement by U Saw on this subject. The policy of His Majesty's Government remains as stated in the last sentence of the White Paper of May, 1945.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL CLOTHING COUPONS

Dr. Clitherow: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the improved supply position, he will now allow extra' coupons to pharmacists and dispensers, in view of the wear and tear caused to their clothing by their work.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): Yes, Sir. People who spend not less than 22 hours a week in hairdressing or in dispensing medicines will be entitled to claim the Industrial Ten supplement as from 17th June. Applications must be made through employers, who will be able to obtain the necessary forms from local offices of the Ministry of Labour on and after that date.

Mr. Glossop: Will the Minister also extend the same concession to dental assistants and dental mecanics?

Mr. Belcher: We are anxious to extend a similar concession to dental assistants and mechanics, but we feel that a different scheme needs to be worked out and we are at present doing this.

Mr. Warbey: Will the Minister also extend the concession to workers in straw hat factories?

Oral Answers to Questions — FLYING-BOAT BASE (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)

Major Bruce: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he has any statement. to make concerning steps being taken to decide between the relative merits of the proposals he has received for the establishment of a permanent marine base for flying boats.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): My Noble Friend has appointed a Committee to review the proposals received from various quarters for the establishment of a permanent flying-boat base in the United Kingdom. It is hoped that the Committee will be able to review the proposals which have been formulated with all necessary supporting data and to report before the end of June.

The Committee will comprise:

Lord Pakenham, as Chairman,
Air Marshal Sir Leonard H. Slatter, K.B.E., C.B., D.S.C., D.F.C., Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Coastal Command,
Major R. H. Thornton (on behalf of the B.O.A.C), and
Mr. A. Gouge, representing the Constructors of the large Saunders-Roe flying boats recently ordered by the. Government.

The Committee will take evidence from all interested parties and make a final recommendation to my Noble Friend on the proposal which will best meet the future needs of British civil aviation.

Major Bruce: Would the hon. Gentleman consider including on the Committee a representative from the British Airline Pilots' Association or some comparable body representing the actual pilots who fly the routes?

Mr. Thomas: The members of the Committee have been selected but any representations from that quarter will be very welcome.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Since the fullest consideration of a permanent scheme cannot be entirely divorced from consideration of interim proposals, would it be possible for my hon. Friend to give an assurance that any interim proposal that may be under consideration will also be submitted to this technical Committee?

Mr. Thomas: No, Sir, the decisions have been taken on the interim proposals. I do not wish that there should be further delay, and the two questions are quite separate.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: May I now ask the Leader of the House whether he is in a position to make a statement about the Business for next week?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 3rd June—Second Reading of the Hill Farming Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution. Committee and remaining stages of the Ministerial Salaries Bill.
Tuesday, 4th June—Debate on Foreign. Affairs on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will open the Debate.
Wednesday, 5th June—It is proposed to take an Allotted Supply Day formally, following the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition. We shall then resume the Debate on Foreign Affairs on the Motion for the Adjournment. I think it will be generally agreeable to the House that two days should be allowed for the Debate on Foreign Affairs.
Thursday, 6th June—Supply (10th Allotted Day); Committee. The Estimates for Scottish Agriculture, Transport Services to the Western Highlands and Islands and Scottish Education will be considered.
Friday, 7th June—Motion for the Whitsun Adjournment until Tuesday, 18th June.
Perhaps, while I am on my feet, I may say that, as the House is aware, we shall be in Committee of Supply tomorrow, and I understand that it is the wish of the Opposition, to which of course, we agree, that there should be a Debate on food.

Mr. Churchill: ; May I say that we wish to debate the general food situation and the conduct of the Ministry of Food during the late Minister's tenure of office? We have asked for this facility from His Majesty's Government in view of the general desire in all parts of the House to have this matter further examined. I would like to thank the Leader of the House for the arrangements which have been made for the two days' Debate on foreign affairs with an opening statement by the Foreign Secretary, and also for the satisfactory agreement which has been reached between both sides by which we give one of the Supply Days and the Government find the other from their time.

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the Debate tomorrow, the Minister of Food will be available to the House. But I thought it was the wish of the House that I should make a statement. In fact. I anticipated being under heavy fire in regard to my mission to Washington and Ottawa, and that the House would wish me to make a rather more extended report on the purpose of that mission. I do rot know whether that is in conformity with the wishes of the Opposition?

Mr. Churchill: Of course, the main fact before us is the resignation of the Minister of Food. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I have no doubt that the House will be delighted to hear any further remarks the Lord President of the Council may make on his mission to the United States, and particularly any clarifications he can give. I must confess, I still remain in mystery over it. I was not at all contemplating making a vigorous onslaught on the right hon. Gentleman, and I would not like his night's rest to be disturbed by that.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman can take it that, had it been so, my night's rest would have been improved. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having given the information, and I will try to conduct myself, accordingly, in the same spirit. I ought to make it clear that we have no intention of debating the resignation of the late Minister of Food. It is, of course, perfectly competent for the Opposition to discuss the work of the Ministry of Food, if the Opposition wish to do so. But I think it


is a novel idea that we should be expected to debate the resignation of my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Food.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not also a novel idea that high Ministers of the Crown should disappear through a trap door, and no word be heard of them?

Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminds me that if any precedents are wanted for these things, there were plenty and to spare under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Churchill: I have had some exploration made of the precedents, and the Prime Minister's recollection is not, I think, accurate. In no case, even during wartime, were Ministers changed, except as part of widespread reconstructions of the Government. We are at peace now. Ministers ought to have the self-respect, when they leave their positions, to explain why.

Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order. Is it in Order to have this disgraceful kind of cross-table talk every day?

Mr. Speaker: On former occasions, I have intervened when I thought fit, but it is for me to decide if and when.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the very serious implications contained in the statement made by the Minister of Labour a few moments ago, can the Leader of the House promise us a Debate on the issue of conscription?

Mr. Morrison: The announcement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is an announcement of administrative action to be taken under the existing law. But it would be appropriate, if there is agreement about it—and the Opposition, of course, have a great tradition in that respect and I agree it is an important statement—it may be thought convenient to have such a Debate on an early Supply Day after Whitsun. It might be possible to arrange it, and discussion could be had through the usual channels, if it were still consistent on a Supply Day, for the policy of the Government to be challenged in the usual way. But the question of a Supply Day is one for the Opposition.

Mr. Churchill: We will certainly consider the importance of the announcement which has been made.

Professor Savory: May I ask the Leader of the House when he proposes that we should be allowed to discuss the aviation agreement with Eire, which we hoped to discuss tomorrow? Much disappointment has been felt because that cannot be done tomorrow.

Mr. Morrison: I should think that if the hon. Member were quick enough in giving notice to Mr. Speaker, he might conceivably be in luck in having it discussed on the Adjournment next week. Otherwise,; I am afraid it will have to wait until after the Whitsun Recess, and would depend on a Supply Day.

Mr. Stephen: Would the right hon. Gentleman afford an opportunity for discussing the Motion on conscription in the names of the hon. Members for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and myself, which would give an opportunity for the discussion of the important statement made earlier by the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid not. The action which is to be taken is the Ministerial responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. If a Ministry of Labour Supply Day is taken for this t purpose, then the appropriate course would be to challenge the Minister by moving a reduction in his salary in the usual way. Therefore the challenge can c be made, but this is administrative action, and it is eminently a matter for a Supply Day.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask if there will be some Minister present to-r morrow who can answer questions or criticisms in regard to the work of the Combined Food Board and the food situation in India? I am at a loss to know whether the Minister of Food in this country has any responsibility or can answer questions about the Indian food situation, and who could answer questions in the course of the Debate.

Mr. Morrison: The Minister of Food and I will both be here. Between us we will be able to cover the main points mentioned by the hon. Member. At the moment, I think it will fall to me to deal with the Combined Food Board and the Indian situation.

Mr. Foot: Referring to the Debate on foreign affairs next week, in view of the great number of Members who have wished


to take part in such Debates in the past, will the Leader of the House say whether he is willing to suspend the Rule on Tuesday?

Mr. Morrison: I follow my hon. Friend's point, and am not without sympathy with him, but it is a two days' Debate, and I should have thought that with the slightly longer day we now have, it would be all right. I am most anxious not to suspend the Rule. I gave an undertaking to my hon. Friends when I had a tussle about the time of meeting of the House. I am afraid we have not altogether lived up to it and I do not want to break it if I can help it.

Mr. K. Lindsay: The right hon. Gentleman said in regard to the statement by the Minister of Labour that it is administrative action, but could he reconsider his decision? Not only the hon. Members for Shettleston (Mr. Govern) and Bridgeton (Mr. Max-ton) but other hon. Members feel that this raises wide implications, as was revealed by the large number of supplementary questions which were asked. Whether a Supply Day is taken or not, could the right hon. Gentleman find time for a general discussion?

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has been good enough to say that he will be favourably disposed to arrange through the usual" channels for a Supply Day to discuss it. If so, I see no reason why the discussion should not be made subject to Mr. Speaker. But if there were any difficulty about that, we would be willing to confer with Mr. Speaker and with the various parties on the point.

Mr. Churchill: Had we not better read the White Paper first?

Mr. Morrison: I quite agree.

Mr. Leslie Hale: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether an opportunity will be given to discuss the question of the working party on the cotton industry which seems to fix the maximum ceiling at a quarter of a million workers, which is quite inconsistent with present needs?

Mr. Morrison: I do not see any immediate prospect of that.

Mr. Stokes: Reverting to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), would the

Lord President of the Council consider again suspending the Rule on Tuesday? There is no question of a vote being taken on Tuesday night, and a large number of Members will want to speak. Two days always prove inadequate.

Mr. Morrison: There have been plenty of two day Debates on foreign affairs in the ordinary way. I appreciate that there are a large number of hon. Members who are interested and keen on foreign affairs, but I think it is adequate. One has to consider with a sympathetic heart the Members of the House as a whole. They have had some pretty late Sittings. I doubt if it can be done, but I will consider it.

Mr. Janner: In view of the increasing despair of the victims of Nazi persecution, the Jewish victims in Germany and other countries and in view of the fact that the President of the United States and the State Department of the United States have declared that they are in favour of the 100,000 Jewish emigrants being allowed to enter Palestine, will my right hon. Friend assure us that we shall have an early opportunity of considering the report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly take note of what my hon. Friend has said, and take it into consideration. There are discussions going on now between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government, and I think that the House would agree that it would not be desirable to have a Debate while these discussions are proceeding.

Mr. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend say that he will try to press these discussions on as rapidly as possible?

Mr. Morrison: I am not conducting them.

BRITISH SERVICE PERSONNEL, INDIA (NEW PAY CODE)

The Prime Minister: With the permission of the House, I would like to make a statement about the future remuneration of British Service Army and Royal Air Force officers and other ranks who are at present on Indian rates of pay. As indicated in Cmd. Papers 6715 and 6750, this question has been under con-


sideration by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of India. Both Governments have now agreed that with effect from the 1st July, 1946, British Service officers and other ranks serving in India and other areas where the Indian pay code is at present in force shall be paid at the rates provided in the new British pay code, subject to British tax, with a local overseas allowance in respect of. the higher cost of living at their overseas station. Certain special arrangements of an interim character are being adopted to provide for the transition from the present Indian to the British code. Details of these arrangements will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Has the Prime Minister also given consideration to British officers and other ranks who are pensioners of the Indian Army, and can he say whether the benefits which have been given to pensioned officers in this country will apply also to those of the Indian Army?

The Prime Minister: That is another question. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put it down. It is not covered by my statement today.

Following is the statement:

Post-war Pay and Allowances of British Service Officers and Other Ranks in India and the Far East.

1. In the White Papers (Cmd. 6715 and 6750) announcing the Post war emoluments of members of the Armed Forces it was stated that the arrangements to be made in regard to British Service Officers and Other Ranks remunerated under the Indian Pay Code were being examined by H.M. Government in the U.K. and the Government of India. This examination has now been completed.

Present application of Indian Pay Code.

2. Hitherto Army and R.A.F. Officers and men serving in India have been paid at rates determined by the Government of India under a system which, particularly in the case of officers, differed fundamentally from that applicable to personnel serving elsewhere: they have also been subject to Indian Income tax. In the course of the war the Indian system was also extended to Ceylon and other areas East of India. It was, however, made clear that this extension of the Indian Pay Code area was a temporary measure and that, at a suitable opportunity, the British Code would be reintroduced in the localities where it would normally have applied.

Cessation of separate Indian Pay Code.

3. Both the Governments concerned have now reached the conclusion that it is undesirable to maintain a separate code for members

of the British Services serving in India or elsewhere, and they have, therefore, decided that from 1.7.46 the new Code, as announced in the White Papers referred to above, and also the U.K. Income Tax Code, should apply both in India and the Far East. The change will enable members of the United Kingdom Forces to be remunerated on a common basis where-ever they may be serving, and will greatly facilitate the administration of pay and allowances.

Local Overseas Allowance.

4. In conformity with the practice under the British Pay Code in certain other localities overseas, a tax free allowance will be introduced to cover extra costs arising from local circumstances. This allowance, hitherto known elsewhere as Colonial Allowance, is in future to be called Local Overseas Allowance, which is a more appropriate title. The rates will vary according to the locality and according to whether the recipient is married or single and accommodated or not accommodated at the public expense.

Cessation of special War Emoluments.

5. The statements in the White Papers regarding the termination of war gratuity, post war credits and war service increments apply equally to the British Services in India and the Far East as alsewhere. As regards Japanese Campaign Pay, it was stated that it would continue up to the anniversary of V.J. Day, i.e. 15th August, 1946. It has now been decided that it shall then cease. As a consequence, it will continue to be issuable at current rates and in accordance with present rules under the new code from 1.7.46 to 15.8.46 inclusive, and it will then be terminated and will not be taken into account as part of pay for the purpose of the special arrangements explained in the following paragraphs.

Application of new Pay Code.

6. In order to avoid hardship which might be caused by a sudden and serious loss of higher rates and the incidence of heavier taxation, arrangements will be made for the grant of war excesses and transitional allowances broadly on the lines of those provided in the White Papers, with certain modifications designed to meet the special features of the Indian Pay Code.

Other Ranks.

7. Pay.

Under the Indian Pay Code, British Service Other Ranks receive their normal home rates of pay converted into rupees at a preferential rate of exchange of 1s. 4d. instead of the standard rate of 1s. 6d. This has the effect of increasing the value of their pay by one-eighth, and soldiers and airmen on the Indian pay code outside India are credited with the same increase.

Where pay, as thus increased, including war service increments and additional pay,* in issue on 30th June, 1946, exceeds the new rate of pay and additional pay plus the single accom-

* Excluding—

Indian Army allowance when drawn as a separate item.

R.A.F. extra duty pay of the nature of Indian Army allowance.

Local Allowances.

modated rate of local overseas allowance, the difference will be continued as a" war excess "so long as the man remains in what is now the Indian pay code area, subject to absorption as indicated in para. 66 (i) of Cmd. 6750.

This rule will apply to both single and married men

Marriage Allowance.

Other Ranks whose families are in India receive under the Indian pay code special rates of marriage allowance together with free accommodation, fuel and light, etc., or payment in lieu. While separated from their families as a result of service conditions, they receive also a separation allowance. If the families are not in India, the normal British rates and conditions of marriage allowance apply.

If the family is in India on 30th June 1946, and remains there, the soldier or airman will be allowed to continue to draw the Indian rate of marriage allowance together with his other present entitlements, but in that event he will receive only the single accommodated rate of local overseas allowance, and he will not receive the allowance referred to in para. 25 of Cmd. 6715 (as amplified by para. 36 of Cmd. 6750). He may elect at any time to be dealt with for marriage allowance purposes under the new British Code if that is more favourable to him, but, once such an election is made, it will be final.

If the family is not in India, or arrives in India after 30th June, 1946, the provisions of para. 5r (b) of Cmd. 6715 will apply.

Officers.

8. Under the Indian code, the system of remunerating officers differs from that under the present and future British codes in that they receive special inclusive rates of pay, supplemented by lodging allowance (both subject to tax under the Indian tax code) out of which they are required to pay for their accommodation, rations, servant, furniture, fuel and light, and various other services. To assess the comparable British emoluments under the new code for the purpose of calculating a " war excess,"It is necessary, therefore, to take into consideration the value of services which the officer will in future receive either in kind or in the form of allowance.

Unmarried Officers.

For unmarried officers the comparison will be ma de as follows:

Indian Emoluments.

Pay.*

War Service Increments.

Lodging Allowance.

New British Emoluments.

Pay.*

Half composite lodging allowance.

Single accommodated rate of local overseas allowance.

Ration allowance (local rate).

For officers of the rank of Brigadier or above (and equivalent R.A.F. ranks) Entertainment Allowance at the standard rates (but not Table Money provided on an individual basis in supplementation thereof).

It has, therefore, been decided that, where an unmarried officer is on 30th June, 1946, in receipt of Indian emoluments as described above in excess of the new British emoluments as described above at the rates appropriate to an officer of his rank the difference will be continued, so long as he remains in what is now the Indian pay code area, as a war excess " subject to adjustment on the general lines of para. 66 of Cmd. 6750, with suitable modifications to suit Indian pay code conditions.

Married Officers.—For married officers there is a further difference between the Indian code and the present British code in that under the former married allowances have always-been subject to tax. The new rates of marriage allowance will, therefore, be more advantageous to officers who have been in receipt of such allowances under the Indian code than they will be to other officers. If, therefore, a married officer previously in receipt of emoluments under the Indian pay code were permitted, not only to retain his former more favourable rate of pay, but also to receive in addition an increased marriage allowance, he would gain a disproportionate advantage as compared with married officers hitherto paid under the British code.

It has, therefore, been decided that for married officers on Indian rates of pay the comparison for the purpose of assessing " war excess " shall be as follows:

Married officers with families outside the Indian pay code area.

Indian Emoluments.

Pay.*

War Service Increments.

Single lodging allowance.

Marriage/Family allowance.

New British Emoluments.

Pay.*

Local overseas allowance at single accommodated rate.

Half composite lodging allowance.

Ration allowance (local rate).

Marriage Allowance.

For officers of the rank of Brigadier or above (and equivalent R.A.F. ranks) Entertainment Allowance at the standard rates (out not Table Money provided on an individual basis in supplementation thereof).

Married officers with families in the Indian Pay Code Area but separated by the exigencies of the Service

Indian Emoluments.

Pay.*

War Service Increments.

Lodging allowance (married rate).

Marriage/Family allowance.

Separation allowance (if in issue).

New British Emoluments.

Pay.*

Local overseas allowance at married accommodated rate.

Half composite lodging allowance.

Ration allowance (local rate).

Marriage Allowance.

For officers of the rank of Brigadier or above (and equivalent R.A.F. ranks) Entertainment Allowance at the standard rates (but not Table Money provided on an individual basis in supplementation thereof).

Other Married officers with families in the Indian Pay Code Area.

Indian Emoluments.

Pay*.

War service increments.

Lodging allowance (married rate).

Marriage or family allowance.

New British Emoluments.

Pay*.

Local overseas allowance at married accommodated rate.

Ration allowance (local rate).

Marriage allowance.

For officers of the rank of Brigadier or above (and equivalent R.A.F. ranks) Entertainment Allowance at the standard rates (but not Table Money provided on an individual basis in supplementation thereof).

Where a married officer is on 30th June, 1946, in receipt of Indian emoluments as described above in excess of the new British emoluments as described above to which he is or might be entitled under the new code, the difference will be continued, so long as he remains in what is now the Indian pay code area, as a " war excess," subject to adjustment on the general lines of paragraph 66 of Cmd. 6750, with suitable modifications to suit Indian pay code conditions.

A single officer in receipt of a " war excess "In respect of Indian emoluments drawn on 30th June, 1946, who subsequently marries while still serving in what is now the Indian pay code area, will have his war excess recalculated from the date of marriage as if he had been married on 30th June, 1946.

Indian Transitional Allowance.

9. The effect of the application of United Kingdom instead of Indian income tax will vary not only according to emoluments but also according as the officer or other rank is single or married and, if he is married, according to the size of his family. It is desired to mitigate the effect of this change, but it is clearly impracticable to adjust each case individually. After a very careful review of the effect of the arrangements explained in previous paragraphs in typical cases and of the altered incidence of tax in such cases, it has been decided on a broad basis that those who are in the Indian pay code area on 30th June, 1946, shall, from 1st July, 1946, be given a temporary allowance, to be known as Indian Transitional Allowance, which will be on a diminishing scale and will cease altogether on 31st March, 1950. The allowance is to be given only to those ranks where the net loss of emoluments would otherwise be unduly sudden. The allowance will be given to single and married alike in each rank and will be at the rates shown below. It will be subject to tax.

Indian Transitional Allowance will be issued also to those who arrive in the Indian pay code area on or after 1st July, 1946, with the object of reducing the divergency between their emoluments and the emoluments of those already serving in the area.

In view of the reorganisation of the categories and ranking of aircrew in the R.A.F., referred to in paragraphs 42 and 43 of Cmd. 6715, which will take effect from 1st July, 1946, it will be necessary, in some categories, to make additions to the rates of Indian Transitional Allowance payable in their case.

Married officers who are entitled under the new British code (Cmd. 6750, paragraph 66(ii)) to a supplementary marriage allowance with effect from 1st April, 1947, will receive that allowance from that date if not entitled to a more favourable Indian Transitional Allowance, but in no case will both allowances be issuable together.

Indian Transitional Allowance will be at the following rates:


Rank.
Daily rates.


1.7.46 to 31.3.48.
1.4.48 to 31.3.49.
1.4.49 to 31.3.50.



s
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


Army Officers—








General
27
6
19
3
11
0


Lt.-General


Major-General
22
6
15
9
9
0


Brigadier


Colonel
20
0
14
0
8
0


Lt.-Colonel
17
6
12
3
7
0


Major
12
6
8
9
5
0


Other Ranks—








Warrant Officer, Class I.
3
0
2
0
1
0


Warrant Officer, Class II.
2
0
1
8

10


Staff Sergeant
2
0
1
4

8


Sergeant
1
0

8

4


Corporal

6

4

2


R.A.F. Officers—








Air Chief
27
6
19
3
11
0


Marshal


Air Marshal


Air Vice
22
6
15
9
9
0


Marshal


Air Commodore


Group Captain
20
0
14
0
8
0


Wing Commander
17
6
12
3
7
0


Squadron Leader.
12
6
8
9
5
0


Flight Lieutenant
5
0
3
6
2
0


Flying Officer
2
6
1
9
1
0


Airmen (except Aircrew)—








Warrant Officer
3
0
2
0
1
0


Flight Sergeant
2
0
1
4

8


Sergeant
1
0

8

4


Corporal

6

4

2

Treatment on leaving Indian pay code area.

10. The above arrangements will apply to officers and other ranks concerned only for so long as they are not posted away from the present Indian pay code area. On leaving the area on posting those who were serving on 30th June, 1946, will have their war excesses recalculated with reference to the emoluments which they would have been drawing under the present British code in the rank and appointment (or nearest comparable appointment) held on the 30th June, 1946. Should an officer or other rank leave the area on reposting and subsequently return to it, he will be treated in the same way as an officer or other rank entering the area for the first time.

MEMBERS' ALLOWANCES (COMMITTEE)

Mr. Speaker: In accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Salaries and Expenses of Members of Parliament, the following Members have kindly consented to serve on an Advisory Committee to consider and advise the Speaker on questions concerning travelling expenses and subsistence allowances:
Mr. Dodds-Parker, Mr. Hector Hughes, Lady Megan Lloyd George, Mr. Scott-Elliot, Mr. Shurmer, and the Right hon. Earl Winterton.
The Accounting Officer, the Accountant and a representative of the Treasury will also serve on the Committee.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

4.4 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Lindgren): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
In doing so, may I express on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself our deep appreciation of the cooperative spirit shown by every member of Standing Committee A during the progress of the Bill through Committee? As Ministers, we were indeed fortunate to have this help, guidance and critical scrutiny of the Bill by Members with a wide and varied experience of life and an expert knowledge of the field covered by the Bill. This Bill comes before this House for its' Third Reading a better Bill, by reason of the unstinting manner in which Members of the Committee applied themselves to the task of examining it. May I too, on behalf of Standing Committee A, express thanks to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) for the very able manner in which he presided over the Committee? Firm, but always courteous, always smiling, he gained the confidence of every Member of the Committee. In my very short Parliamentary experience, it has been my good fortune to have the honour and privilege of assisting my right hon. Friend in piloting two very important Measures through the various stages in this House and through Committee. To me, one of the most valuable parts of that very interesting experience has been the progress through Committee and sitting under the chairmanship of two very competent chairmen —the Industrial Injuries Bill with the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute Northern (Sir C. MacAndrew), and this Bill with the hon. Member for Holland with Boston; as they have given Rulings, put Amendments and collected voices, I have got as near to envy as I think I have ever been.
In reviewing the main changes in the Bill since it left this House after the Second Reading one is immediately reminded of the important improvements made by Members of this House who were


not privileged to be Members of Standing Committee A, those improvements being secured during Report stage. There was the easement and extension of the terms of admission to the scheme of persons employed abroad—a concession gladly given by my right hon. Friend following representations made to me in correspondence by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor).
The income limit for exemption from insurance has been raised from £75 to £104. May I make it quite clear that it is not intended that this exemption shall be granted to Class 1 or regularly employed persons -but only, by regulation, to self-employed and non-employed persons? It is the earnest hope of my right hon. Friend that such exemptions will be few, for with the exemption from contribution goes the exclusion from benefit. It is our hope that a rising standard of life through a rising national income will, in course of time, reduce to negligible proportions the number of persons who wish to claim exemption.
During the Second Reading Debate, in response to demands from all sides of the House that the self-employed should be placed on the same footing as employed persons in regard to sickness benefit, I indicated on behalf of my right hon. Friend that, whilst we could not commit the Government, my right hon. Friend would look favourably upon an Amendment to that end if it were moved in Committee. That undertaking, Mr. Speaker, has been kept to "the full. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who so ably, and with great fairness, led the Opposition in Standing Committee A during the examination of this Bill, claimed it, on the Report stage, to be a victory for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Well, we do not mind. The important fact is that it is a good step forward in the provision of insurance, cover for this class of person. But if credit is to be given, let it go to the proper quarter, to the effective use of representation to this House and of responsible negotiation with the Minister by the National Trade and Kindred Organisations—and with due modesty to my right hon. Friend for being so responsive to the representation of a good cause when it is made to him.
This provision will be approached with a desire to see that the administration

shall protect the insurance fund and the self-employed person. My right hon. Friend has asked me to say that in considering the administration which will be set up to deal with it, he would welcome any representation not only from the National Trade and Kindred Organisations, who have already offered their help, but from any other organisation representative of self-employed persons who would like to cooperate, make suggestions, or enter into negotiations.
May I take this opportunity to try again to correct the fallacy which has, more than once been expressed in this House, in Committee, and even by that great national daily "The Times "That the self-employed contribution is on a less generous basis so far as the Exchequer supplement is concerned than the contribution in respect of the employed person. It is not. The contributions of the two classes, in so far as they relate to the same benefits, are on exactly the same basis. But employed persons are insured additionally against unemployment, and unemployment insurance is financed by contributions of equal thirds from the Exchequer, the employer and the employed person.
By bringing the Exchequer contribution for this insurance into account, and then comparing the total Exchequer contribution in respect of employed persons with that in respect of self-employed persons, without regard to the fact that the self-employed persons are not included for unemployment, the fallacious argument is built up that the self-employed contribution is not built up on an equitable basis. I hope that clears the point which was made during the Report stage by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) and which was emphasised a little later by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden.
Improved provisions for maternity have been made by giving the maternity grant of £4 for each child born at a confinement. I was surprised to learn from the Government actuary that it is anticipated that this concession to " payment by results " would cost £30,000 per annum. The payment of the maternity grant prior to confinement will, I am certain, be appreciated by the mothers-to-be. For widows an easement in the earnings rule has been made and widowed mothers and widows will now be able to earn up to


30s. without any effect upon their pensions. The insurance position of married women was under discussion both in Committee and during the Report stage. May I emphasise the observations of my right hon. Friend when he was replying to the discussion on this point yesterday? This is a national insurance scheme. The actuarial calculations have been on a national basis. One cannot take individuals or groups of individuals and relate individual or group contributions to individual benefits. Particularly is this so from an actuarial point of view in regard to women. May I say once again, emphasising a point I tried to make in Committee, that the retirement pension of 26s. for women at 60 years of age, or the 16s. to wives on the retirement of their husbands, would not actuarially 'be possible but for the fact that women entering insurance at 16 and leaving direct insurance on marriage have—because the period of insurance from 16 to marriage is a " good insurance life "—left in the insurance pool a valuable reserve.
Unemployment and sickness are small and there is no, or very little, claim for maternity benefit. Also, of course, retirement pensions are not claimed. Therefore, on exit from insurance on marriage these women have, in fact, left a very good reserve in the Insurance Fund which goes to contribute to the pension for women, obtainable at 60, of 26s., and of the wife on the retirement of her husband at the age of 65. By the option to married women to come in in their own right or rely on the rights created by their husbands' insurance, we are giving them a very favourable option, for in the main it will only be taken up when it is, from the individual's point of view, likely to show a profit.
Whilst dealing with the actuarial basis of this fund, one might perhaps call attention to the fact that the incidence of adversity to which this Bill gives insurance cover, does not come equally to all sections of the community. Teachers, civil servants, local government employees, and railway clerks are groups of employed persons who do not suffer unemployment, loss of salary through sickness, and even have a guaranteed standard of life when they reach the retirement age. One of the pleasant features of the discussion of this Bill in this House, in Committee, and particularly in the country, is

that those groups of people—privileged persons one might almost call them— have not stressed in any shape or form the privileges they have had until the present time. They have rather expressed their gladness to come into a national insurance scheme and to place their " good " lives at the disposal of the community as a whole in order that a much better financial basis can be given to the national insurance scheme.
Clause 62 was the subject of discussion on Second Reading and of a Division on the Report stage. During the Second Reading Debate both my right hon. Friend and I gave an undertaking that this important Clause would be clarified so as to make it clear beyond peradventure that no finance or other means test could be applied to applicants for extended benefit. That such should be the case was always the firm intention of the Minister and the Government. Ira the light of my right hon. Friend's record in this field, and the consistent and persistent attitude of the Labour and trade union movement on this subject, I must say I was surprised that the intention of the Government was ever in doubt. However, I think it can now be agreed on all sides that the intention of the Clause is clear beyond shadow of doubt.
I almost hesitate to mention friendly societies and approved societies. It is a subject on which there has been honest difference of opinion. We have had long debates—not too long in view of the importance of the subject. All will, I think, agree that the issue has been freely, frankly, and thoroughly examined. A decision of this House has now been taken and may I express the hope, may I make an appeal, that all concerned will now cooperate with my right hon. Friend, and the Department, in the very important, onerous, and difficult preparatory work which has to be completed in order to bring the scheme into operation?' Both the Minister and I have stressed on many occasions our consciousness of the vital importance of the administration. The consultative preparatory work has-already begun in this connection and my right hon. Friend has given me special responsibility. The cooperation we seek has already been evidenced by these consultations and I am certain we shall now go ahead with increased speed and zeal, reach a very satisfactory conclusion and


establish a very satisfactory standard of administration.
Some may say that in this Bill too much is left to the Minister to settle by regulation. This feature of the Bill, however, presents possibilities of flexibility and elasticity, in the field where such features are very necessary. In this respect the Bill is a great experiment. In the approval of this experiment the House has rightly required safeguards. Those safeguards are, first, scrutiny of regulations in draft by an Advisory Committee; the representation of views by all interested parties to the Advisory Committee whilst the regulations are still in draft, and the publication by the Minister of the reports and recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the draft regulations submitted to it, and second, the affirmative Resolution and Prayer procedure of this House, in regard to regulations made by the Minister. The effectiveness of this experiment in legislation will, I am sure, be watched with interest.
Good though this Bill was on its introduction to this House, substantially improved though it is as a result of Parliamentary scrutiny, I would not claim that it is a perfect Bill, but, at least, it is another milestone along the road of social progress in our country. The hope of a new era opening before the British people will become established fact by good will, responsibility and cooperation of all sections of the community with Parliament in giving effect to the opportunities created by this great Measure.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler (Saffron Walden): We on this side of the House congratulate the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on bringing this Measure to the Third Reading, and I hope that any anxieties the Minister may have exhibited in the anxious task he has had, will now be relieved by my statement that I think he will have a fairly easy day. All good luck to him. The Minister has combined the humanity which derives from his lifelong experience of these matters, with a courtesy in paying attention to the points which we have put before him in so importunate a manner. He now has only to place on this record the culminating achievement of being a great administrator, because the Bill is going to

depend on administration and on the creation of a machine because the machine which will be necessary hardly exists at all at the present time. The Minister will not be in the position of taking over a Government Department already running. which does as it is told. He will now have to prove himself, in the eyes of the country, a man who can administer this Measure, for which he has been responsible in Parliament—and, no doubt, other Measures as well—and I feel that he will be ably assisted by the Parliamentary Secretary, who has just moved the Third Reading of this Bill.
I think we should take pride that the British race has been able, at this time in our history, shortly after the terrible period through which we have all passed together, to show the whole world that we are able to produce a social insurance scheme of this character. This Parliament should congratulate itself on having passed, with, I hope, efficiency and certainly, at the behest of the Government, with rapidity, a Measure of this scope and volume. The hon. Gentleman, in moving the Third Reading, expressed his gratitude to those sections of the population now coming for the first time into an all-in insurance scheme, for bringing, as he said, their " good lives " with them. We welcome that, and look forward not only to an all-in insurance scheme but to an all-in society, in which this Bill will be a feature, just as other Measures— educational, health and others—will take their place in a society in which, if differentiations are to go, ignorance must also go, the ignorance of one section of the community about the lives of the others. I think one of the most salutary features of a Measure of this all-in character is that every section of the population will learn to understand better the trials and difficulties which beset the other sections—trials and difficulties derived not only from want, but, sometimes, from too much plenty. Therefore, I trust that all sections will learn to respect the position of the others, and that we may go forward together as a happier family.
We have heard a great deal, since the early days of that great pioneer Sir William Beveridge, of those words " social security."I have always felt that those words are not very adequate to describe the reform in framing which we are all taking part. The word " security " gives a rather negative im-


pression. I should prefer to call it " social certainty."There should be, at the basis of everyone's life in this country, certainty about certain things, and, upon that certainty, people should be able to build a fuller and better life. I have never taken the view, and we on this side of the House do not take it, that, because a person has certainty over some aspects of his life, he will necessarily sink back into a negative position, undertaking no creative work whatever. It is much wiser to put a basis into the lives of people, so that they may be enabled to have more time to devote to the creative things of life, and to help the country through the difficult times ahead.
The Opposition has attempted to play a constructive role in Committee and throughout the Report stage of this Bill. We guaranteed that this Bill would be brought through the Commons in time to be made the law of the land by the Summer Recess, and I think we have carried out our undertaking without the need for any form of Guillotine or any odious procedure of that sort. I myself always prefer that sort of understanding and that sort of procedure. We have been agreeable to the suggestion, which we have warmly welcomed, that the payment of pensions should take place this autumn. We are in favour of these pensions being paid, indeed, I do not see how it is possible for many old persons to live upon the money they get at present. While the Government have undoubtedly improved upon suggestions made by previous Governments, improvements which are welcomed, there is no doubt that the improvements were necessary, and that it will be necessary for these payments to be made as soon as possible. We on this side want those who are old to have security from worry when they desire to retire. The words " retirement pension " are a great improvement on the previous words, and to draw these benefits at the first possible opportunity will be an important provision. Therefore, we have deliberately hastened rather than delayed the passage of this Measure.
In speaking of the payment of moneys, it is necessary for me to say that we trust that this scheme will not affect the policy adopted by the Government for a general improvement of the standard of living, and that, as a further strengthening of

the British character, people will be encouraged to hard work and enterprise to make possible a standard of living and an economic system in this country which will enable the value of money to be retained. It is of no value to the working classes of this country, who most need these benefits—including retired persons —if, at the moment they are offered an increase in the amount of money, the value of money sinks so that the benefits mean nothing to them. There have been noticeable recently regrettable tendencies towards inflation, and there is no doubt that we are now in a period of rising prices and rising costs. Therefore, I cannot sufficiently stress the need for accompanying this Measure with assurances from the Treasury Bench that every step will be taken to retain the value of money, as we understand it at present, by a wise and provident policy of administering the National Exchequer.
I raised this matter in the Debate on the Second Reading, and I then asked the Government and the Prime Minister, who was present, for a picture of the cost of the services to be borne in general by the Chancellor, including the Defence Services. At that time, I named a figure of something like £1,768 million as being the total charge which would fall upon the Exchequer. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor was good enough to give an answer to this request from the Opposition for a further picture of what the cost of the social services, as a total, would be. He forecast that the social services would come to a sum amounting to some £500 million in 1946–47, rising to some £700 million in 1948–49, and that they would go on rising after that, although more slowly." He forecast the Defence charge as amounting to £1,000 million, comparing it with the late Sir Kingsley Wood's figure of only £500 million as the proper level for Defence Services in times of peace. The Chancellor said:
 We may not be able to get down as low as that for a long time.…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1946; Vol. 421, c. 1822.]
It looks to me, therefore, if we are to take the Chancellor's words as an accurate type of forecast—as we should—that the burden on the Exchequer may well be over £2,000 million and, thus, considerably above the figure which I mentioned in the Second Reading Debate. The Chancellor, however, has never given—and I do not know whether the


Minister will be able to give it tonight—in relation to what I am saying on the need for economy and a constructive policy in dealing with the national finance, one very important figure which was mentioned by the Lord Privy Seal in his speech on the Second Reading. The Lord Privy Seal said:
The truth is, the national cake is not big enough.…It is not enough to provide an adequate subsistence for all our people, and it is not sufficient to provide those opportunities of life arid services which all the people of our country in a democratic community are entitled to enjoy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, nth February, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 98.]
The figure which the Chancellor and the Government have, so far, not let out, is the estimate of the size of the national cake. If the right hon. Gentleman can give us any indication of that, in relation to the social services expenditure which is going to rise so steeply, we shall be in a much better position to understand what are likely to be the liabilities of this country in taking on such an immense scheme as this. It is important to stress these matters because, on the prudent management of our finances and on the hard work and enterprise of our people, depend absolutely the value of money upon which in turn the success of this scheme itself depends.
I say this in no censorious manner, except that I should have liked to hear a little more from the Chancellor, and I hope we may hear a little more from the right hon. Gentleman. I have been a sinner myself in steeply increasing education costs at a vital time in the history of British education, and I quite understand the necessity for a scheme_ of this sort. What we want to be sure of is that this scheme fits into a picture which is fully understood by the contributor, who is going to pay large sums under this Bill, and who will want to feel that the benefits he gets are stable and not liable to be taken away by a decline in the value of money. Throughout the proceedings on this Bill we have naturally examined the question whether it really is an Insurance Bill. If we look at the Report of the Government Actuary on this Measure— than which few more able documents have been presented to this House—we find that, by the year 1978, more than half of the total sum necessary to finance this scheme will be borne by the Exchequer. Therefore, if we look 50 odd years ahead

we see that it is not, in the literal sense, an insurance scheme; it is a combination of an insurance scheme in which the contributors are asked to pay large sums, indeed larger than some realise, with a scheme towards which the taxpayer will, in 1978, make a very large contribution indeed. In certain countries—I believe in Australia—the social services are financed more directly through taxation, and in that way the contributor achieves his benefits and knows where they are coming from, although we often forget taxation when we are eating, smoking or drinking the articles on which we pay it.
We must leave the Bill and look ahead in order fully to understand the extent to which this is an insurance scheme. In 1978 it is only going to be an insurance scheme to the extent of 50 per cent. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention to the remarks I have made about the need for administering the finances in such a way that we shall be able to afford to pay from the Exchequer the sums necessary to make this scheme work. I feel certain that the contributor will not be able to pay larger sums than those desired under this scheme and, if he is to.pay more as a taxpayer, let him be satisfied that things are prudently managed. The Opposition have tried not to increase the charges, except in some small respects, to which the hon. Gentleman referred when moving the Third Reading. In one respect, we have tried to decrease the charge—in respect of the death grant. We thought it might be possible, in Committee, to reduce the amount of money paid in the death grant, by permitting certain policies which exist to go on and bringing only new entrants into the scheme under a certain age. My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) and others who have helped me as a happy team on this side of the House will no doubt make reference to this and other matters.
It only remains for me to refer, following upon the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, to some of the detailed improvements. We welcome the fact that the self-employed are now to be treated on all fours with others in the scheme. I, who am so frequently inspired by the journal to which the hon. Gentleman referred— this national daily from which we get so much of our inspiration, especially when we are in the wilderness, and which was misled by the calculation of the extent of


the Exchequer grant in relation to the self-employed—fully confess that I and that estimable journal will have to stand corrected. We welcome the fact that the exemption limit has been raised to a certain extent, as also the maternity. grant, and the concession to the widow, that she may earn a little more money before part is taken away.
I do not want to make undue claims for my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself, but it would be straining too much my loyalty to my friends if I did not point out that the initiative in many of these cases lay with us, although we were glad to take help from every side of the Committee and the House. The position of married women has, I think, been left so that it does not satisfy many of them outside this House. The Minister has put forward cogent arguments for carrying on the principle of the Coalition White Paper that a married woman should be entitled to opt whether she will continue in her own insurance, or whether she wishes to insure by right of her husband's insurance. I feel that that is fair. An option is given and the married woman may choose. If she is dependent, like certain married women we all know, she may well choose the one path, and if of an independent type she may choose the other. That is a fair offer. What is not so satisfactory is that we do not know what the Minister has in mind, owing to the fact that the Clause relating to married women is to be operated almost entirely through regulation. There we must reserve our right to make representations when we read the regulations.
There still remains a blurred edge, and that is in regard to the future position of the Assistance Board. I should like to pay a further tribute to the work of that Board, which has gained an estimable reputation throughout the country. We are obliged to accept the Minister's view that he cannot use it for the purpose of paying extended benefit, and it would be idle to go back on that subject now. But I would not like it to be thought in the country that that' implies, or casts any slight on the operation or function of the Assistance Board.
I would like to point my finger at the Minister, if I were permitted to do so, and remind him that he himself will be obliged to use the Assistance Board in cases where extended benefit is not granted by his tribunals, so that he is not escaping the

Assistance Board, as many of his own supporters have pointed out to him far more pungently than I could do. We believe there is a necessity for further legislation to clear up some of these blurred edges, and I believe the Minister has in mind a new Bill relating to assistance and the poor law. I would like to say categorically, that we on this side of the House do not believe in going back to the old poor law system in any respect whatever. We have no intention that those circumstances shall be brought back. We shall look forward to reading the right hon. Gentleman's Bill when it comes forward and offering him the same sort of constructive help as, with some few exceptions, I think we have tried to give from our limited resources on this occasion.
Now for a few words on administration. We still think that Clause 62 is very unwise. We think that the method of using the tribunals as prescribed in Clause 43 is not sensible, because it combines a mixture of judicial and executive functions, which is not likely to be successful. We would have preferred a method in which the Government Departments were more closely brought in, so that expert advice about long term unemployment and the economic situation could be introduced into the administration of this question of extended benefit. I hope this method will work and, while it is true that the Exchequer grants made under Clause 62 will not bring the Fund into disrepute, we trust that lax administration will not mean that Exchequer contributions will bring the National Exchequer and the national finance into disrepute. We do not think the whole administration of that system is properly centralised, nor can we see how the lonely, self-employed man's benefit for sickness during the linking up period, can possibly be made to work, however high his moral character may be, and however much the Minister may have a far seeing eye. If the Minister would give some assurance on that point it would give us satisfaction. The Minister has made a concession about the self-employed man, but that detail of linking it up with the days of unemployment will make the administration of that aspect of the scheme very difficult.
I very much regret that the Minister has not agreed to put in the Statute something about a regular report from the Insurance Advisory Committee. Perhaps


he can give us an assurance that the reports of this committee will be regularly published. I understand that in the Act of 1935 there is no such provision and, therefore, the Minister is carrying on the old practice. I think it would be better if we could be assured by the Minister, in the concluding stages of this Bill, that it is his intention that we and the country shall have full information about how this scheme is working, through reports from this committee. We would also like a statement from the Minister about overlapping benefits. I do not think we have had information on that point, and I hope he may be able to tell us more about the operation of Clause 30.
What I think is most mysterious is how the Minister intends to use friendly and approved societies in the interim period, and then to drop them overboard and start off on his own ship. I understand it is vital to the scheme that these agents shall be used in that interim period. If that is the case, we regret that the Minister has not been able to be a.little more elastic, not about using these approved societies as autonomous financial units, nor about depriving the scheme of that centralised control and unification which it must have, but of using the agents as paying agents' under his scheme. The Minister will not be able to say much more about that here, and I do not know what the future history of this question will be, but we would like to know on the Third Reading of this Bill what interim arrangements there will be for using the friendly and approved societies and for carrying on their administration into the future, and what arrangements there will be for using these agencies if they cannot be used as paying agencies under the scheme.
Here I think it would be appropriate that this House should pay a tribute to the magnificent work done by the approved societies since the Act of 1911. [An HON. MEMBER: " And the friendly societies."] The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware that the expression " approved societies " can be taken to include " friendly societies."I intend that it should be so taken. It is well known that Mr. Lloyd George, as he then was, would not have made his scheme operative had he not called in aid the approved societies. Without them we would not be where we are now, and the

Minister will be hard put to it, through his own agents, to create that same friendly and human atmosphere which has been created by the visits of the agents of those friendly societies to the homes of the people.
We would also like to hear from the Minister, on the administrative question, a statement about the dates for the corning into operation of the various Parts of this Bill. I understand the pensions are to be paid in the autumn. What is the position about the contributions for those pensions? I understand the Measure is to come into force in 1948. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that any Part should come into force before then? If he expects us to understand the jargon of Clause 73 (4), I am afraid he will be disappointed. It is really incomprehensible. A combination of parentheses, safeguards and modifications, make it almost impossible to understand it. I shall not detain the House by reading it, although I think I would draw a smile, if I did so. I would simply draw it to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and ask him to tell us if he proposes to put into effect any Parts of this Bill before other Parts; whether he proposes to introduce modifications or not; how this scheme will link in with the health scheme and how it will be synchronised with the benefits under the health scheme, and, altogether, to tell us a little more about the happy days when we shall see the results of his Bill.
In moving the Third Reading of this Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary told us, with some satisfaction, that the use of regulations would be an interesting experiment. I can only tell him that we are already kept up sufficiently late at night in this House by this use of regulations. The Advisory Committee is already overburdened and overworked. As the operation of this Bill depends in some 97 places on the use of regulations, as far as I can see, we shall have to sit weekends as well as during the week to deal with them, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has made advance arrangements with the London Passenger Transport Board for the purposes of getting hon. Members home in the early hours of the morning—and, not only us in this Chamber but the staff of the House as well. I trust that we shall hear from the Minister of Transport a less gloomy statement than he gave us yester-


day, and that there will be special workmen's fares for Members of Parliament to go home at an early hour in the morning on specially constructed moving staircases, after dealing with the regulations which the right hon. Gentleman will have to submit to the House on many occasions in the future. He is proving a great friend of the London Passenger Transport Board and a great enemy of the health of many of us in this House.
In conclusion, I would say that we are at the beginning of a new chapter in the history of social insurance which goes back many years in this country. We shall all want to watch the effect of this scheme on the individual character of our people and, I would stress what I said in my opening remarks, it will have the effect of giving them not security, but certainty upon which they can build for themselves better and fuller lives. I trust that it will not, to any great extent, result in a reduction of voluntary savings. There is nothing so satisfactory to character as feeling that one has done something for oneself. The right hon. Gentleman has a heavy responsibility. I think it will depend a great deal upon the operation of this Measure what attitude the individual takes to the State.
As a result of this Measure, will the individual regard the State as a friend or as a machine? Upon that will depend a great deal of the success, not only of the Minister's plans but of the whole happiness of the country in the future. Is this to be a partnership or charter between the individual and the State, in which rights are balanced with duties? I trust the State will not be regarded simply as a universal provider which shells out for the benefit of the individual, but rather as an intimate friend. I trust the State will not be regarded as a target for grumbles, but as a ready help in trouble. With those few words I wish the Bill well on its Third Reading.

4.51 P.m.

Mr. Blyton: I feel honoured to take part in this Debate. I congratulate the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary on the magnificent way in which they handled, not only this Bill, but the Industrial Injuries Bill, which was the first of the Bills dealing with security. In August of this year, when this Bill operates for benefits, a lot of people will enjoy the benefit of increased

pensions. As the pensioners are, in the main, working class people, there is no doubt that it will ease their economic situation. It has also been made clear in this Bill that supplementation of pension will still take place. There are many people up and down the country who think that because there is a fixed figure of two guineas for a man and wife, there will be a reduction on the amount they are receiving now. It ought to be made clear that under this Bill supplementation will still take place.
A very important factor is the sickness benefit which will be paid under the Bill. For years our people, when they have been ill, have received 15s. to £1 a week, and have had to supplement that by having to appear before boards of guardians during their periods of sickness. It has meant that at the end of their period of sickness a debt has accrued against them, which has had to be paid to the public assistance committees, or it has necessitated them having to spend their savings. It has also meant that the ratepayers have had to find a certain amount of money in their poor law estimates to meet the incidence of sickness among working class families. The rates to be paid under this Bill will obviate men and women having to return to work before they are better simply because of their economic position. It will clear away the necessity for estimates by local authorities in dealing with sickness. People may now be assured that debts will not accrue against them, and they will not have to go before boards of guardians to enable them to live during their periods of sickness.
Under this Bill it is proposed that for inmates in institutions the Minister shall pay to local authorities the full 26s. I have no objection to that. However, I would ask the Minister to get into touch with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in regard to old people whose families do not want them, or who have no families and find that the eventide of their lives has to be spent in an institution. Their old age pensions of 10s. a week are received by the local authorities—under this Bill they will receive 26s. —and some local authorities give is. or 2s. pocket money to the old people in the institution; there are some authorities who give nothing. As the local authorities are now to get 26s., I would ask the Minister to consider laying down the rule


that these old folks should be given 6s a week pocket money out of that sum, so that they can buy their " baccy " or sweets, or whatever they need in the eventide of their lives, instead of being left as they are now. That would mean that the local authorities would get a 100 per cent, increase and, at the same time, it would bring a little sweetness into the lives of these old people who have to finish their days in institutions.
In Committee I raised the question of " wholly or mainly maintaining,"In relation to dependency. The Minister and myself have discussed this matter. While I am still opposed to the principle of the 50 per cent., which hits the lower income groups of this country very hard, I agree with the Minister that it would not be prudent at this time to alter the mathematical formula in the transitional stage of the development of this Measure. Whereas today widows get 10s. a week, under the Bill they will receive 26s.; therefore, they will not be able to get two benefits in relation to that. Children are to be eliminated, because their amounts are 7s. 6d. to 5s. While I am prepared to accept the Minister's point of view in regard to giving one or two years' administration under the new Bill, I suggest he should abolish what happens now, namely, deducting public money from the amount which the applicant gives to his mother to go into a common pool. I also suggest that in the calculation of an application for a dependant, the applicant's net wages should be taken, thus preventing the cooking of figures which has gone on for years. When a lad paying his mother board and a certain wage went before a court of referees, we always told him that he was to say he gave his mother the lot; if, on the other hand, he gave his mother all his money we always told the court of referees that he never got more than 2s. 6d. or 5s. a week pocket money. We had to do that to so arrange the figures in order to get the lad benefit. It will not cost the Minister a great deal if those two anomalies are excluded in the calculation of " wholly or mainly maintaining " during this period of the operation, and it will render it unnecessary for men to be sly and cute in order to cook the figures to obtain benefit under a particular Section.
In regard to the tribunals, the method of having an employed man, an employer and an independent chairman is that used

at present to determine extended benefit cases with regard to unemployment. With the three sections of contributors, namely, the employed, self-employed and non-employed, it may be, if something is not fixed by regulation, we shall find a self-employed man and an employer will be determining an unemployment case. The result will be that the man will be tried by two employers instead of having an employed representative sitting on the tribunal. I impress that very important point upon the Minister, because it means so much to a working man appearing before a tribunal for extended benefit. Another point in this Bill about which we are pleased is that the pernicious means test has been abolished. No longer will trade union officials have to advise sons and daughters to leave home and go into lodgings so that their fathers and mothers can get unemployment pay. I was a little surprised last week, when the Division was forced after the Minister had given an undertaking that it would be an objective test and not a subjective test in relation to extended benefit. If the test for extended benefit as described by the Minister is to be a definite offer of work, and if the man is to refuse that work after all the available provisions of the Bill have operated to test his case, I consider that this Bill cannot cater for anti-social people. Seeing that we got a definite undertaking from the Minister that the consideration of applications for extended benefit by the tribunals shall be based upon an objective test and not a subjective one, a considerable advance has been.made upon the present position in regard to unemployment pay as we know it today.
Coming to the question of the duplication of benefit I, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), am wondering what the Government will do. In the North, particularly among ex-soldiers, it has been given out that if they have a war pension they will not get their retirement pension under this Measure when they reach the age of retirement. I am pleased to state that the Minister, in a letter to me, has categorically denied that any partial case will be denied the right to a retirement pension, and has said that the present conditions will continue. The important question I would like to ask—and it is a very important one—concerns ex-soldiers


and compensation cases arising under the National Insurance (Industrial. Injuries) Bill. If a man is killed in the pit, or if a soldier dies as a result of wounds received in the last war, and if under the operation of this Bill the dependants of one are entitled to a pension under the Industrial Injuries Bill, and of the other to the full war pension, will they receive their national retirement pension as well when they reach the retiring age? That is a question which ought to be cleared up very quickly, so that we shall know exactly where we stand in relation to the duplication of benefits.
I do not intend to speak at any great length on this, but I do ask the Minister most particularly, in relation to chronic cases on our unemployment lists, to try and rehabilitate those men and get them back into employment. Under the old Unemployment Insurance Acts we have seen sick men, of no use in the labour market and unable to compete with ordinary men for any particular job, have to go to the doctor and get a note to say that they were fit for light work; they have then gone to the employment exchange to sign on because they could not live upon the sickness benefit they were receiving. The result has been that right through the war we could not place those men into any kind of job. The same applies to the men whom industry has discarded with light rate compensation. There are many hundreds of these men whom it is practically impossible to place in industry because of their incapacity. Cannot we do something on a national basis and, if they cannot be rehabilitated, take these hard luck cases over and regard them as permanently sick and of no further use for employment, and pay them in accordance with the benefit schemes of this new Bill?
In conclusion, I hope that the Government will speed the day when they will introduce their new national assistance Bill which will see the end of " Bumble " and " Boodle," and which will give to our people the security to which they are entitled, so that after years of work in producing the wealth of this country they will see their future assured in economic security, as far as this nation can provide it.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Beeehman (St. Ives): Having taken advantage of my opportunities of

contributing to the discussions on this Bill in Committee and on Report, I do not wish to weary the House for more than a few moments, but I should like to say that I feel it a privilege to have played a part, however humble, in these discussions, because we have here produced what I feel sure is a great Measure which will be of benefit to countless homes throughout the country. Our discussions, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, were constructive, and the hon. Gentleman very rightly spoke well of the efforts of everybody concerned They were constructive and went well because this Bill is based upon principles to which all parties in this House assent. The success of the work of the Committee was due to the work done in the past by the Liberal Party in building up social services. I often think that the wide acceptance nowadays by all parties of those beneficial liberal principles accounts, perhaps, in some measure for the smallness of the representation of the Parties concerned.
I also wish to pay my tribute to the Minister. The success of the Committee and of the work in which we were engaged was to a great extent due to the fact that we knew, as I have known for years, that the Minister is one who not only knows a very great deal about these social service questions, but who also has his heart really and sincerely engaged in the welfare of the people The Parliamentary Secretary is a newcomer in these matters, but I would like to say that, perhaps after a little bit of bellicosity here and there, he settled down and became a firm and helpful cobelligerent with us all. Incidentally, may I say how much I welcomed the tribute to the Chairman, whose work was undoubtedly exceptionally good?
The success of this Measure will depend on the labours of the people of this country. What we are providing here is not a gift. I am one of those who think that the financial provision can be made; it will depend upon whether we have as much production as can reasonably be expected in the world as it is now. It is not for me to argue now what measures should be taken to ensure that there is sufficient production to guarantee the success of such a Measure as this. Let the country be clear that what is here provided will be the fruits of their own labour.
The Minister made an appeal just now to friendly and approved societies to help. I take the view that the friendly and approved societies, having made their case, have not been at all unhelpful in their attitude. They have stated, by expressions in this House and outside, that they welcomed the Measure and wished to assist its progress. I therefore hope that the Minister will remember that approved societies of all sorts have shown themselves helpful in that way. I hope also that he will remember the great services they have rendered in the past, and that the industrial insurance offices and friendly societies will have their work to do in the future. I hope he will think of them with due regard to what their position must be. We have been told of the committee on the subject of compensation. I would like to feel more assured than I do that the committee will be representative of all the approved societies. I am not altogether happy about the position, or that those who ought to receive compensation have not been left out.
With regard to the self-employed persons, I greatly welcome the step which the Minister took of reducing the waiting days. That means that the self-employed person is brought in. If the waiting period had been left as it was, to all intents and purposes the self-employed person would have been left out. As regards the actuarial computation, I shall have to accept it from the Parliamentary Secretary that I was behind the times, but I must maintain that the amount of the contribution from the self-employed person is disturbingly high. The Minister has also given us a pledge about the share fishermen. I am not going to ask him whether they are in or out. His word is good enough for me. I understand—no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong —that the unemployment benefit referred to will be dealt with by regulation, and that the Minister will see deputations from communities and districts which are particularly affected- I fully understand that there will have to be certain definitions, and possibly some safeguards.
Finally, the Minister, at a very early stage, was not quite so keen on the home service as I was, but he did make it clear that there is to be a home service. I agree that not everybody wants a home service, but in rural areas and remote

places, the fact that somebody comes to the home with the cash and that help is given in person, is of vital importance. Indeed, if there is not a home service in such cases the scheme will break down. Certificates from doctors have to be considered and claims to be looked at. By the time all that is done and the postal draft is sent, the time will have gone by when the assistance was needed. The Minister will require to have a home service and he will require to have a large number of offices. I ask him to see that those offices, both subordinate and chief, are in the right places.. In the Committee I was rightly told that I was out of order when I began to raise this matter but I shall not be long about it now. I would like to give just one example.
Administration of the West of Cornwall is managed from Bristol in the case of many Departments. I am full of praise for the work done by various Departments in Bristol, but I think it is absurd to imagine that Bristol is the right place from which to manage the detailed work that has to be carried on in the extreme West of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. There are probably other cases of that sort in the country. I ask the Minister to make sure that he has his offices in the right place. His headquarters are to be in Newcastle, and, from what I hear, that plan is working out quite well, although the Minister has his difficulties.
In conclusion, I welcome the Measure because I know that it will relieve many homes from anxiety. I feel sure that a great deal of the disease in this country arises from anxiety, as we realise more and more. Here is a fine example of the way in which the State can help, by laying down sound foundations beneath which homes cannot sink. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) that the foundations of this Measure do not prevent people from engaging in adventures which will carry them forward into interesting, and even thrilling, ways of life.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Mack: We have now reached the Third Reading and final stage of the Bill, in an atmosphere of compromise and good spirits. I am sure that I shall be forgiven if at the outset I pay my tribute, with that of hon. Members on all sides of the House,


to my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance. I was one of those who was rather surprised when he was given this appointment. I knew, as did many other people, of his warmheartedness and great natural ability, by virtue of his having been a miner and having devoted a great deal of his life to problems associated with mine-workers. I wondered, however, whether he could face, without previous notice, the problems associated with this great office and could discharge the immense and onerous duties which would inevitably fall upon him. To our surprise—and this is no reflection upon his natural ability—he has won the admiration of everybody. National insurance is a most complex problem, involving the most intimate functions that a Minister can discharge and going more directly into the hearts and homes of the people than anything else. The Minister has had to deal with many problems, and must have delved deeply into statistics and facts and previous enactments on this great subject. He has acquitted himself with astounding versatility, but nevertheless, has been very pleasing to us all. He owes this great humanity to his earlier training.
I have had the unenviable task in this House of having to defend—perhaps that is the wrong word—insurance agents. Standing almost alone in this House in that respect, I have been the object of much good humoured fun. But nevertheless, I have tried to put the case of these men. without exaggeration and as fairly as possible. There are 65,000 of them, and I think everybody will agree, whatever may be thought about industrial insurance as an industry, that those men have proved very fine citizens, performing their duties unsparingly and carrying out vital functions which have helped to ease greatly the domestic burdens of the population of this country. Naturally, they are very disturbed, and in many cases agitated, about their future, for they see in this Bill—which they support because they believe the good of the community must take precedence over any sectional interest, however important it may be— dangers which might affect their livelihood.
The function of a trade union is to defend the livelihood', the conditions and terms of its members. My union has had a number of misgivings about what might happen under this Bill, particularly on the

question of compensation and the absorption of redundant insurance workers into the new scheme. I have had private conversations about this with the Minister, who has been very kind and understanding; in the Committee I tried, as tactfully as possible, to draw from my right hon. Friend a statement about what he was prepared to do in regard to compensation. His reply was that when the State, by its own action, transfers functions from one body to another, the States accepts liability for absorption or compensation. It is for that reason that there are three or four categories of workers to whom tie Minister is to pay special attention in the matter of absorption.
The first of these categories is, of course, fulltime workers engaged in the business of National Health Insurance. In this connection, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Hackney (Mr. Goodrich) will recognise that I have tried to be not unduly controversial, although I could not support him in the very loyal manner in which he conducted a campaign on behalf of the approved societies. The workers of the approved societies have done their work manfully and well over a long period of years, and it is right and proper that due regard should be had to that fact and that they should have priority in absorption. But when we speak of the work of the friendly societies, we must not neglect to remember the work which has been done by the industrial insurance agents in regard to National Health Insurance. It has been done equally well as that of the friendly societies, and it would be unfair, because of the natural anxiety of some hon. Members to preserve the friendly societies, to neglect to pay a tribute to the work of those who did their part in the industrial insurance side of the business. The industrial insurance side has developed so much that at the present time it numbers more members than the purely friendly society side of the business. The insurance agents have rendered to the State and to the people of this country exceptionally fine service, which I think the House will recognise.
The second category is the industrial insurance agents. They are not fulltime workers in approved societies, but many of them depend to a large extent for their livelihood upon approved society work. They have a wide and intimate knowledge of the business. I want to remind my


right hon. Friend that there will be, from the very nature of things, great redundancy in this industry. I know he has not lost sight of that matter, but no harm will be done by repetition at this very late stage. I fail to see how all these 65,000 workers can be fully employed, for the reason that industrial insurance will be faced with State competition at certain points. Industrial insurance will be deprived of a portion of its business by virtue of the compulsory death benefit which has been introduced. Moreover, the fact that 5s. or 6s. a week will be drawn from workers in order to pay for national insurance means that they will have less money to pay for voluntary insurance over and above that amount. There is also the fact that the State can more cheaply provide death benefits than would be possible in the case of companies or societies. The industrial insurance agents are beset with many difficulties of a nature which must adversely affect their business.
That being so, 10,000 or 20,000—I do not want to give any figures that may be regarded as concrete—may be redundant. What are they to do? They will go the Minister, and he may say, " We want something like 20,000 or 30,000 people."I hope that my right hon. Friend will regard these people, in the case of absolute redundancy, as being equally important to those workers of approved societies who will lose their livelihood. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that no man more than the average insurance agent is better fitted, by personal qualifications and experience, to deal with the public. What are those qualities? I remember that, in Committee, the Minister pointed out that he had absolute faith that if the Government took over national insurance in a vigorous and determined manner, people working for the State would do so with the same zeal, enthusiasm and kindly qualities which they show when working for private enterprise. I would go further arid say that they may well be expected to work with greater zeal, because they will be working for a greater cause.
We want to bring more of the spirit of kindness and service into our lives. I am bound to say that, to some extent, kindness has gone out of people Largely because of the privations and difficulties of war, rationing, queueing, and all the

anxieties which are heaped on the heads of the population, there is a lack of courtesy and human understanding I hope that these new State servants, working under the scheme, will help to revive this kindly spirit, and that old people who are looking forward to a home service and closer care—perhaps by virtue of their ignorance of these matters, or through loneliness and isolation and not being able to keep abreast of things—will have courtesy and kindness shown to them. I agree with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) that there is a great deal to be said for the home service, although it can be over-emphasised; to some extent the home service will provide the soul of the administration of this Bill I hope that it will not be a case of people applying at an office and expecting to be treated in a cursory manner, but that, on the contrary, they will be shown every consideration in attempting to help them in their various difficulties.
I should like to say to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) that I was amazed at his metamorphosis. The right hon. Gentleman made a splendid speech He has a streamlined brain; he is not only fluent, but generally well informed. I would like indeed to pay a generous, though not a fulsome, tribute to those Members of the Opposition who have seen fit to give us a conditioned measure of support on this Bill. It is true that they have the right to claim a certain amount of credit, although they have played a minor role. Such are the vicissitudes of political fortune. I hope that in future they will earn still more credit by supporting other Bills which the Government may bring forward from time to time. I am happy to think that the many Opposition storms that might have been expected on a Bill of this sort have to some extent subsided, due to the wise generalship on this occasion of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden. If there is anything in the theory of reincarnation, I trust that, since he and I are contemporaries, fate may ordain that we may be on this side of the House in a future Parliament, working for the same ideals. I hope the House will forgive me for that digression. I was taken by surprise.

Mr. Lindgren: But the hon. Member is not so surprised as hon. Members opposite are.

Mr. Mack: Perhaps the introduction of a little diversion of that kind, as long as it is human, may be forgiven. I do not want to trespass on the time available for other hon. Members beyond saying this— that on the question of compensation we did have some difficulty, and the difficulty rested upon the phrase about workers who are "wholly or mainly " dependent upon National Health Insurance income. It is unfortunate in the case of a number of workers. I have here a statement made by my right hon. Friend, who said:
I do not accept the principle of compensation, except on the basis that the State pays compensation where it transfers functions by its deliberate action.
He also remarked in the same speech:
The insurance agent at his best is no more than an insurance agent He has played a very good part."—
I agree.
There will be vacancies over and above those for whom the commitments in Clause 66 stand, and we shall give consideration to insurance agents for those vacancies, for they have the experience and qualifications which we shall require."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 4th April, 1946; c. 564–5.]
I do trust that the staffing committee which will be advising him is not to be a mere adjunct, but something on which he can rely for counsel and experience, and that he will have regard to their recommendations and find some way of dealing specifically with those insurance agents who find themselves excluded, either through redundancy or by virtue of the fact that the Minister cannot take them into the scheme. If he will do that, and can go into the question of compensation, I think he will win the respect and affection of many people. After all, if we on this side of the House can compensate the directors and shareholders of banks, surely there is a case for dealing with these poorer members of the community who are being deprived of their living, or a part of it, through no fault of their own, but because of the necessity of advancing along the line of national insurance. I appeal to the Minister to pay regard to this, and I am confident that we—I am speaking as an ex-insurance agent and on behalf of that body of men—can assure him in return of our loyal service and cooperation which he has a right to expect, and which will be gladly forthcoming when the time arrives.
5.33 p.m.
Sir Waldron Smithers (Orpington): On 2nd November, 1944, I made a speech in this House on the Beveridge proposals. On nth February, 1946, on the Second Reading of this Bill I again made a speech in which I uttered very serious notes of warning from a financial point of view about the possibility of this scheme being carried out. I will not repeat these arguments today. They are on record. But it would not be honest of me, having been called on the Third Reading, not lo remind the House of what I said on those previous occasions. I have no regrets whatever. I am convinced that one day what I said then will come true. I know I may be alone today in opposing this Measure, but I am sure that hon. Members on all sides of the House will allow me to speak, because I speak with great sincerity, and I have some knowledge of the matter.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Bill is to get its Third Reading at one of the most critical, grim and grave moments in the history of this country. The increase in the freight charges and fares on the railways announced yesterday, the increase in M.Ps.' salaries, and the expenditure through this Bill are all typical instances of the mad rush to inflation which is going on in this country. This Bill is another mile down the inflation road. It is another step up the vicious spiral. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I do ask them to believe that I want to put this point of view very seriously.
During this Debate reference has been made to so many pounds and shillings a week. But what sort of pounds? What are they going to be worth? If this inflationary process goes on, the purchasing power of the £ sterling will go down arid down. I want to put this to the House, not from any political point of view, but as a hard fact—that all this enormous increase of expenditure is inflationary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) gave us the figures—I hope I quote him rightly —showing that £500 million was the cost of social services now, rising to £700 million in a few years. I would point out that in 1910 expenditure on the social services was £63 million. All this Governmental expenditure, and expenditure from contributions, must come out of industry. It has to be earned. It must


increase the cost of production at a time when we are going cap in hand to America for food and money.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member is going very far away from the Bill. We cannot discuss inflation now.

Sir W. Smithers: With great respect, I do not know if you were here, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden made a very strong point of this in his speech.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was not here, but so far as the hon. Gentleman's speech is concerned, he is out of Order.

Sir W. Smithers: All I will say, then, is that it is important that the financial policy of the Government should be directed to maintaining the purchasing power of the £ sterling.
If for no other reason, I am against this Bill because of the extinction of the friendly societies and of the splendid home work that they have done. I would ask hon. Members if they have read the leading articles in the " Statist " of the last two or three weeks, because those articles are not written from any party political point of view. They are objective, and I would ask hon. Members to read them. I do ask the Government to tell the people of this country the truth about the difficult situation in which we are placed and how, in many cases, it is not possible to increase expenditure at this critical time. What is the good of a benefit of £100 a week if the money is worthless and if there is nothing to buy? That is a situation to which we are rapidly approaching. [An HON. MEMBER: " Nonsense."]
This Bill is introduced by the Socialist Government as a result of the promises they made at the General Election. It was part of the policy of mass bribery. They made promises and raised hopes which I for one do not believe are capable of fulfilment. The soap box has triumphed—[An HON. MEMBER: " Let us have a clean up."]—and soap box policies have yet to be realised.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot find anything in the Bill about soap boxes.

Sir W. Smithers: This country will be faced with a major disaster if we have a

repetition of the 1931 crisis. I would do anything to help anyone, but I believe that these proposals are brought forward at a most dangerous moment in the history of our country.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Dairies: I hope the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments, which I think the House will realise are peculiarly his own. My reason for intervening in this Debate is to deal with the question of administration, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) rightly said is the most important aspect of this Bill. It is a tradition of this House that Third Reading Debates are occasions for handing out bouquets and saying nice things to the Minister, but for my part I do not look upon this stage as anything more than the beginning of the real problems yet to come. We have taken decisions within the content of the Bill, whereby we have not only to seek the cooperation of existing agencies, but to create an administration. In my view it is not generally recognised how vast and complicated this is going to be.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to one of the Clauses in the Bill, which indicates to me a lack of imagination, or of appreciation of the task which lies before us. In Clause 42 we find that
 local advisory committees shall be composed of local people representative of employers or insured persons, or both.
That may have been all right under the old approach to social insurance, where it was a question of the relationship between the employer and the employee. But this Bill, by its comprehensive nature, brings in the whole of the community, and therefore this Clause should have been drafted in terms which encompass the whole of the community. New classes are coming into insurance. We now have shopkeepers and the non-employed, and as a generalisation we can say it covers the whole community. I look upon local committees as representing the whole of the community and not being narrowly confined in their scope. When the Minister gets down to the job of dealing with the local committees and the work they will undertake, I hope that he will bring real imagination and grasp to the problem. I am strongly opposed to over-centralisation in attempt-


ing to administer this scheme. I take the view that we have to bring people close to the scheme, enable them to play a great part in the creation of the service. I have had discussions with the Minister on the question of giving sufficient powers to local committees. I can see the Minister's point of view, and that the same sort of system of transfer, as in the case of the Inland Revenue, may be necessary. But unless we have counter checks, we shall not have the right type of service, and we shall not be able to make the system work. It is not good enough to say that we can go to the Ministry of Labour, and apply the same type of committee which operates in Labour exchanges.
I have taken an active part in public life, and I make no apologies for having been a soap box orator in my early days. I really know my locality, and I have entered into many phases of its life. I confess that I do not know how the local committees of employment exchanges are constituted. Local committees must not be bodies remote from lives of the people. We must show imagination and scope so that they have the widest representation, if we are to get the scheme to work. I ask the Minister to let us know, too, how payments are to be made. We recognise that some of the payments are to be automatic. I want the Minister to tell us something about what appears to me to be a danger in removing so many of our old people from the scope of the Assistance Board. With the right hon. Gentleman the Member for. Saffron Walden, I pay tribute to their work. They have developed a true social service, particularly in regard to the old people. Old age is a most difficult and heartbreaking problem, particularly among the working classes. These very old people have outlived their generation, and the assistance boards have provided them with a living contact with the community that it would be disastrous to lose.
In our discussions on friendly societies we heard a lot about home service, but I prefer personal service in the administration of this scheme. I have tried to picture an ordinary woman, not necessarily from the working class, but someone who is living on restricted means, coming to a great big office for a death claim to be paid out. As far as that type of pay-

ment is concerned, we must pay attention to our methods of approach. We must be prepared to give a personal service, because death is so personal and grief resents the eye of the casual intruder.
This administration is going to absorb great numbers of our people within its ranks. I want to see an administration grow up, based upon the experiences of the past which will give us a live, expanding service. This is a beginning, and in five years' time the Minister will have the duty thrust upon him of a quinquennial valuation, which will indicate the lines to be taken in the future. I look upon this scheme in reality as merely a beginning. I would utter the warning— and I am not being controversial—that if it is to be successful we shall have to devise an expanding service that will bring within it not only the existing scales of benefit, but the whole of the industrial insurance of this country. I have often heard the Lord President of the Council, in dealing with these questions, say that they are decided on lines of what is in the " Public interest."I want to tell him, and other Members of the Government that on these benches there is arising a. school of thought that will not always interpret as being in the " public interest "The nationalisation of derelict and bankrupt industries. For a change we want to see brought within the public service some of the financially successful businesses that can be harnessed to the public need.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Bowen: I hope that the Third Reading of this Bill will not be brought to a Division, because it is a Measure which is. in the best Liberal traditions. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that this was an important milestone on the road of social legislation. I should like to remind the House that this is not journey's end. We have still a long way to travel on the road of social reform. This is not the appropriate time to make detailed criticisms or comments on the scheme as a whole. Many of us still think that it has some serious blemishes, but, at least, we cannot complain that we have not had every opportunity to discuss and debate them during the various stages of the Bill. I should like to join in the observations of praise which have been made on the change of position with regard to sickness benefit for the self-employed man. To one who


represents a constituency which has probably as high a proportion of self-employed persons as any other represented in this House, that change is particularly welcome.
The Parliamentary Secretary invited us to state any suggestions we had to offer, with regard to the peculiar position of the self-employed persons. May I accept that invitation? The self-employed persons in the rural areas—the rural craftsmen and people in that category—are going to find that their contributions to this scheme are very heavy. Six shillings and twopence a week are going to mean a great deal to them. They are people—and this is a psychological factor which has, I think, to be taken into consideration— who are going into an insurance scheme for the first time. I respectfully ask the Minister to consider, in the light of his experience, as this scheme is operated, whether it would not be possible to bring in some sliding scale of benefits and contributions for these people. I think that it will be found that the payment of the heavy premium of 6s. 2d. a week will create grave difficulties in the implementation of this scheme in relation to the self-employed. Some sliding scale system of benefits and contributions might well produce successful results.
It has been emphasised by the Minister and by other speakers today that the key to the success or failure of this scheme is effective, sympathetic and efficient administration. There can be no doubt that the scheme deserves the wholehearted cooperation and help of all insured persons, and I think that we, as representing our individual constituencies,, should help to create a proper understanding and attitude towards the scheme by the insured public. It is our duty to do so. Whether the scheme is to have the good will and cooperation of the general public, which it deserves, depends, I suggest, on how the machinery which is to implement this Bill is operated.
Without detaining the House long, may I make one or two suggestions in that direction? I think that if this scheme is to be sympathetically received, it should be operated with the greatest measure of decentralisation consistent with efficiency. I hope that the region which is to be set up in Wales will be given the largest

measure of autonomy possible? If we are to have this scheme implemented by a soulless system of remote control from Newcastle, it is doomed to failure. As a representative of a rural district, I welcome particularly what has been said about the establishment of local security offices, and in particular of local advisory committees. I hope that when this scheme comes to be operated the rural areas will be given generous treatment in regard to the establishment of these offices. Some of these areas are very scattered, and people have to travel very great distances. I hope that when the Minister comes to decide how many offices are to be provided in particular areas, he will do all he can to provide the maximum number in the rural districts.
That incidentally is going to assist him in carrying out his promise in relation to the home service. I hope we are not going to have a number of offices, for example, in my constituency. If there are only going to be offices in the main towns of that constituency the payment of benefits to persons who wished to have a home service would involve the officials in journeys of 40 to 50 miles. Obviously the administrative costs in carrying out something of that kind would be prohibitive. I hope the insured public will be told of their right to a home and personal service.
The Minister is going to have a difficult task in building up administrative machinery, in training the necessary staff and in grouping the necessary machinery. But at least he has the advantage that he can—as I feel he will—see to it that the individual members of the staff will approach all these problems in an intimate and personal manner. A great deal will depend, particularly in rural areas, on the way insured persons are treated by the officials. If they are treated with suspicion as if their claims were, on the face of things, of a dishonest or fraudulent character, the Minister will not get the cooperation which the scheme deserves. I hope that the Minister will get local officers who know and understand their own districts and be in sympathy with the community as a whole. If people of that kind, who are determined to administer this scheme sympathetically, are procured I feel certain that this scheme will receive the blessing, cooperation and good will which it really deserves. I am sure that all of us here, and particularly the fellow


countrymen of the Minister, wish him all success in his great administrative duties. May I say with regard to the Parliamentary Secretary, that his close co-operation with the Minister and his Celtic temperament have been such that we would be glad to issue him with a naturalisation certificate.

6.3 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: Now that we are coming to the end of the more tempestuous stages of this Bill and into the calmer waters of congratulation to the Minister on having brought it safely to harbour, I want to begin by assuring him that as far as I am concerned my congratulations are very genuine and very sincere. I say quite honestly that I think we have here not only a great Bill but a great Minister. Of course, he strayed occasionally from the perfect path of righteousness, and some of us with all kindness tried to lure him back. That docs not alter the fact that he has shown throughout this Measure, and in particular throughout his handling of the discussions on this Measure, a breadth of approach and a humanity which augur very well for the administrative future of this scheme. I agree with the hon. Members who have stressed the importance of the administrative side of this Bill, and I can add to that my belief that there is no other man in this House to whom we could more safely entrust the breathing into the administration of this scheme a spirit of humanity.
I do not want to spoil that nice opening note by raking over old fires, and I do not want to go into some of the details of controversy which have been occupying us, but I just want to glance at what seem to me to be the three major principles behind this Bill. I suggest to the Minister that we are in danger at certain points of not fulfilling those principles. In some cases it may be difficult for the Minister to avoid that, but in others there may still be time. The first principle underlying the scheme, a revolutionary innovation in our insurance system, is its universality, and I know that my right hon. Friend is as concerned as any of us that the scheme should exclude as few people as possible. Some of us had occasion to go to him on the Committee stage, and ask that the income limit for exemption should be raised from 30s. to

£2 a week. We did so reluctantly, but we did so because we felt that those persons who are trying to eke out an existence on the small income of 30s. a week just could not carry the 3s. 8d. We have got to face up to that fact. So we raised the exemption limit, and that means that we are faced with the problem of many thousands of people who, by our doing this, will forfeit the cover of the scheme when they will probably need it more than anyone else. I have always felt about this scheme that, although I support the contributory principle, perhaps we have driven it too far, for there is nothing sacrosanct even in a contributory insurance scheme about the figure fixed for the Exchequer contribution. I should have liked to have seen the proportion of the burden borne by the Exchequer raised and the contributions lowered, in order that we should thereby have been able to include in the scheme more of the people whom we want to have in, but whom we have now to leave to a later measure of National Assistance.
It is also from this point of view that I have regretted some of the provisions about married women, because we do say in this scheme that when a married woman becomes a widow, if she is still in her early years, she should expect to stand on her own feet. Therefore, we are refusing, I think rightly, to say to the married woman that, as a married woman, she is covered by the provisions and by security for the rest of her life. She may have to go back into the labour market, and I feel more should have been done to keep her in the scheme. The second principle which is revolutionary in this scheme, is that benefit should be paid as long as the conditions which gave rise to the need for it last. We have faithfully and completely applied that principle in the case of sickness benefit. It is a very great improvement on the Coalition Government's White Paper scheme for which I congratulate my right hon. Friend. I only deeply regret that I cannot congratulate him on being consistent in also carrying out that principle in relation to unemployment benefit. I do feel that Clause 12 remains the serious blemish on the new principles of this scheme, which I would hope that there might still be time to improve.
The third principle is the principle of subsistence. We have applied this principle in a rough and ready way, to secure that the benefits paid under this scheme should be adequate in themselves to keep a man and his family in healthy existence without recourse to other forms of assistance. That is the principle at which we were aiming, and as my right hon. Friend explained in his Second Reading speech, it was with this intention in mind that he increased the adult scale of benefit under the scheme above that suggested even by Sir William Beveridge.
He did it on the following argument: When Sir William Beveridge suggested that 40s. was adequate benefit for a man and his wife he was taking as his assumption a cost of living figure 25 per cent, above the prewar level. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that the cost of living figure today is nearer 33 per cent, above and, consequently, he has increased his adult rate of benefit to 42s. for a man and his wife. We welcome that improvement but, unfortunately, owing to the way in which children's allowances have to be paid under this scheme, we are faced with the very serious situation that under the provisions of this Bill the more children a man has in his family, the lower he is likely to drop below the subsistence level when he comes on benefit.
I can give the House a few simple examples. A man and his wife and one child, under the Beveridge proposals—and it will be remembered that Sir William Beveridge suggested a family allowance of 8s. for a child, giving 8s. benefit for each child— would get 48s. From my right hon. Friend they will get 49s. 6d., that is, 42s. for the parents and 7s. 6d. for the first child. But if there are two children in the family the allowance, under the Beveridge scale, would be 56s. whereas, under my right hon. Friend's proposals, it is only 54s. 6d. For three children, the Beveridge scale is 64s., and my right hon. Friend's scale is only 59s. 6d. We get a progressive drop in the comparison as we increase the number of children. I know that the reason is not entirely ' under my right hon. Friend's control. It lies in the fact that under the Family Allowances Act an allowance of 5s. per child is payable, and that where that is payable no other benefit can be drawn in respect of the child. The Family Allowances Act applies only to the second child and onwards.
My right hon. Friend has done his best to adjust the balance by making the benefit for the first child 75. 6d., but when that child is added to by others they can draw only 5s. I appreciate that that is outside my right hon. Friend's control in this Bill. But this Bill is only a beginning in the perfecting of our structure of social security, and I urge him to treat as one of his most important priorities the adjustment of this state of affairs. It is clearly inadequate to expect an unemployed or sick man to keep his children on 5s. a week. We have, in this, a complete condemnation of the Coalition Government's Family Allowances Act, which fixes the allowance at only 5s., and then states that that should be paid in lieu of any other benefit which may be drawn when a man is unemployed or sick.
Sir William Beveridge most clearly indicated in his very scientific assessment of a child's needs that even at a cost of living figure only 25 per cent, above the prewar figure a minimum of 9s. a week was needed to maintain that child. He appreciated that children are now drawing a certain amount of subsistence in kind through milk and meals in schools, and he allowed Is. deduction for that, leaving the figure, at 8s. I appreciate that this Government have gone even further in the provision of free milk and meals, which will adjust that figure to some extent, but we have to remember that the cost of living has risen. It is, therefore, condemning the children of the unemployed and the sick to inadequate standards of subsistence to perpetuate for a moment longer than is necessary a Family Allowances Act, which gives them merely a 5s. benefit for every child after the first. I know my right hon. Friend cannot do everything at once, and that his eyes are on the future. I know he will not rest on his oars when this Bill is on the Statute Book. I ask him not to rest while this flaw, this serious danger to the health of children in this country, remains to be remedied.

6.16 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I would like to say a few words about the rural districts. The contribution to be called for from the rural worker will appear to be a high one for them, particularly in the case of many self-employed who have not been in any insurance scheme before, and many of whom have quite small in-


comes. I am aware that below £104 a person may contract out, but there will be a great many people whose earnings are between that figure and,, say, £3 and £4 a week, and who will find the contribution which they have to pay as an employed person, and more so as a self-employed person, a considerable drain on their resources.
Yet I think it is our duty to do our best to persuade these people that it is in their best interests to come into this universal scheme. I would do that with greater assurance if the Minister were to indicate to the House something about the plans he has for making his scheme understood in the rural districts It is a problem enough in the cities and towns, where it is easier to get into touch with people, to have them understand a new and complicated scheme such as this. How much more so in the rural areas. I would like to know that the Government will have these areas well covered by offices to which the people can go for advice, and where their claims will be dealt with quickly, as well, of course, as sympathetically. Much will depend on the way in which the Minister puts across this scheme to the rural workers. I hope he will use every means of doing so. including the B.B.C.
There is one other matter to which I would like to call attention, and to which I would like a reply. Clause 30, Subsection (1, a) places in the Minister's hands very great power to make regulations. Indeed, he may make regulations which may go so far as to render nugatory many of the most valuable provisions in the Bill. He could regulate that a person in receipt of a disability pension might thereby be excluded from receiving sickness benefit, old age pension or any other of the benefits under his Bill. That is a very wide power to give to a Minister, and it is made worse by the inclusion, in line 18 of that Clause, of the words:
 (excluding an allowance under the Family Allowance Act …
The moment you place in a Measure words like that, which limit the power of regulations, it is surely implied that that is the only direction in which you will limit them So, I ask the Minister to give us a most solid assurance that it is not his intention to make regulations which would in any way diminish the benefits which are due to disabled soldiers, sailors, air-

men, and others under the Royal Warrant, Orders in Council, or similar instruments. As I have said, the assurance is all the more needed because of the particular reference in the Bill to the family allowance. I should be out of Order were I to pursue much further matters that are not in the Bill, but perhaps I may ask the House to assent to this principle and to encourage the Minister to tell us that he assents to it also. The principle is that he who pays a full contribution must receive a full benefit. If the Minister assents to this, then he will have made us feel happier that his power to regulate is not going to take away from any disabled soldier the pension he has earned as the result of his wounds or service, and which has nothing whatever to do with this Measure. Can the Minister, on this Third Reading, give us this assurance? I hope he can, and, better still, I hope that at this late stage he may say that in another place he would welcome an Amendment which would make this clear.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Tolley: In speaking on this very important Bill which is; now reaching its conclusion, I would commence by congratulating the Minister upon the method and manner in which he has. piloted this great social reform Measure through this House. Like him, probably, I find that as I stand here my mind goes back some 25 years to the time when I first became associated with the poor law system of this country. I was elected to the old board of guardians and was associated with it during its transition period when it became the public assistance institution and authority. Many cases come back to my mind very vividly as I stand here of the tragedy of the social system which was in operation in this country at that time, and when I longed for the day when I should see a change in the system whereby men and women would be recognised as human beings belonging to a great and mightly country and Empire, and have the rights, freedoms, and privileges which belong to them as citizens of this country.
For too long have we been content to impose upon them untold hardships, man-made through the fault of an inability to understand and appreciate that no man or woman in sickness or during times of unemployment can themselves, in the main, have any control over those


things. Yet in the past, as the result of the operation of this social system, men found themselves, because they were sick, in an uneconomic position which was tragic in the extreme; and if they were sick for long periods they found their wives and families suffering, with a huge bill being built up which they could never hope to pay, simply because they were ill. That is a tragedy which comes back to my mind. I think of those who, in the past, could not afford to be ill. When sickness overtook them they knew perfectly well that they would not only be ill, but that the economic situation in the home would worsen during that time.
Now at last today, after many years and down through many centuries, I feel that we shall give our approval to this Measure because we know it is a Measure of social justice long overdue. I pay my appreciation to hon. Members opposite who have made their contribution to this, although perhaps in some senses and to some degree I have disagreed with things they have suggested. In the matter of sickness benefits I welcome all that has been included in this Measure. If I had any comment to make it would be simply that to my mind the benefits are still small, but I recognise that, as many hon. Members have said, there is no finality about this Measure and that it is only the first step along the road of social progress and one which we shall continue to improve upon as time goes on. I have to accept for the time being the period of time allowed for sickness benefit and the amounts themselves in the very determined hope that very soon we shall improve even upon them.
May I now turn my attention and that of the House to what has been the greatest tragedy of all, that of unemployment? As a member of the poor law assistance committee I have seen men come to that body when they had exhausted their benefit and had been refused further unemployment benefit when they had been unable, again as the result of circumstances over which they had no control, to obtain employment. We have penalised a man or woman because of the system which we have created and maintained and which forced a man into idleness against his will. Because of that system we have given a man what he has regarded as mere charity—and indeed it was and was doled out as such—and he has resented in the

extreme the method in which the country has recognised his services.
This Measure gives benefit to a man as a right, and by virtue of the fact that during the time he is in employment, he will make his contribution. That contribution, as has been said, -is a fairly high contribution, but he will make it as an insurance policy against the time when he is unemployed in the safe and certain knowledge that, if he becomes unemployed again, he will at least receive maintenance which will enable him to keep himself in decency and maintain his status and that of his wife and family. I say in all seriousness that I welcome very much the fact that I have been privileged to be associated with the Government which has introduced this great Measure of social reform. It is only part of a final scheme which has yet to be put into operation, and I congratulate the Minister very heartily upon the manner in which he carried it through because I know he possesses the sympathetic understanding of a man who has passed through the hard school of life and has suffered some of the evils I have related. With that great sympathetic understanding he has endeavoured to introduce into this House and the country a measure of social reform which will, for the time being at any rate, alleviate some of those evils. May it be that before this Parliament comes to an end we shall witness the Minister introducing a further instalment of this Measure which will be final and complete in as much as it will give to our people that sense of justice and equity to which they are rightly entitled.

6.29 p.m.

Major Digby: Like other hon. Members who have had the privilege of participating in the consideration of this Bill from the Second Reading through the Committee stage and Report stage, I take this opportunity of congratulating both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on their success in a very arduous task, on the very conciliatory spirit in which they have piloted this Bill, and also on the very reasonable way in which they have tried to meet the suggestions and Amendments which were put forward.
A great deal has happened to this Bill since it had its Second Reading. We have considered it in very great detail. I feel that at times, perhaps, we have


been a little apt not to see the wood for the trees. Now on the Third Reading it is fitting that we should remember again some of the principles lying behind this Bill which are going to be very important in its administration. The first feature of this Bill is its universality. It is a scheme which will introduce great benefits by using the magic of averages, and there has-been very little disagreement that that is the right principle. To use the phrase of the Parliamentary Secretary, we are going to bring the " good lives "In to the help of the "bad lives."This will be advantageous to the bad lives, but it is also in the interests of the community.
Another principle which should lie behind this Bill is that of simplicity. Once or twice I have wondered whether we were not in danger of departing from that rule, and when the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary were resisting our arguments on the question of friendly societies, I was not sure that they satisfied the principle of simplicity so very well. Certainly it will be an important principle for them to uphold in the administration of this Bill. It follows from this universality and simplicity that the Bill fails to cater for every case. We ' cannot have both simplicity and the means to meet complicated cases. The two simply do not go hand in hand, and that is a point which has to be weighed very carefully in drawing up the regulations and in the actual administration of this Measure when it is on the Statute Book.
I turn to another of the main principles of this Bill which once again, I think, we are a little apt to forget. That is the principle of uniformity of contributions and benefit—the principle that benefits are in no way related to wages. Hon. Members will have noticed that Appendix F to the Beveridge Report points out that of the insurance schemes which are in force in other countries, there are only two based on this principle of uniformity. All other countries have related benefits to the actual wages normally earned. I have no doubt that we were right in continuing along the old lines of uniformity, but it has very serious drawbacks. There are some to whom the contributions will seem high. There are others to whom the benefits will seem small. If I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer aright the other day, benefits are to be taxed, so that those who are used to the higher wages, will feel

this lack of relation between benefits and normal wages more than would otherwise be the case and it will be a very real problem for them.
To take only the case of the self-employed, we have here a very wide range of people used to a very wide range of wages. We have everything from mole catchers, whom we discussed upstairs, to rich industrial magnates, and whereas the contributions which are necessary for the self-employed people will seem very large indeed to the mole catchers, I daresay, the benefits will seem very small to some of those who are more fortunate in the size of their normal income. There is no doubt that here we have possible difficulties in the administration of this scheme. We see when we consider this question of uniformity how very important it is that everything possible should be done to encourage voluntary schemes, and to make it easy for voluntary insurance to go on among those who are used to medium-sized earnings. I hope that when he is drawing up his regulations, the Minister will bear this in mind. I am perfectly certain that he can make voluntary insurance very much easier if he so wishes, as I am sure he will.
I had hoped that we would hear more upstairs about the way in which this scheme was to be administered than was actually the case. So far as I am concerned, the picture is still very incomplete. A great deal of it has to be filled in by regulation. As to what these regulations are to be, in more than one case the Minister has given us a broad hint. There are other cases, however, where we know little or nothing about them. For example, we know very little about the machinery which is to be used during the transitional period. Obviously the transitional period—before the Minister has been able to set up his own staff and his own machinery throughout the country —will be a difficult time. We want to know what kind of structure there will be in place of what is now being done by the approved societies. I hope that, when he winds up this evening, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us a little more about that. We know that he is choosing—I think probably wisely—a flexible method of payment of benefits, so that people can draw them in several ways. They can go and collect them; they, can apply for somebody to bring the payments to them; or they can receive them through the post. Can the Minister


give us any idea how much each of these three respective ways of distributing benefits is likely to be used? Will it be possible to have the home service in country districts?
That brings me to the question of the national insurance offices which we soon hope to see throughout the countryside. Where are they going to be—in the same towns that now have employment exchanges? Are they going down to the smaller towns? In districts such as my constituency, people are often a very long way—exceeding ten miles—from the nearest town where there is an employment exchange, so that this is an important matter. Will the home service cater for these rural districts, or does the Minister intend to make other provision for them?
I should like to say a word about the retirement problem, which I believe to be a very difficult question. In a new scheme of this kind it is so very difficult, with the best will in the world, to see exactly how it will work out in practice. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am a little worried about this retirement problem. We must strike a balance somehow between the inducement to men not to retire at 65, or women at 60, if they can go on and also the inducement to them, if they have to retire, to undertake casual work. That is a point which the Minister will want to watch very carefully in his regulations.
The importance of preventing inflation, from the point of view of the benefits, has already been stressed. I know that there will be a review of the scheme in five years and that it will be possible to adjust the contributions and benefits, but it is most important if this scheme is to get going, and to work properly, that prices should remain fairly stable. It is not a question of 26s. or 28s. The point is. What will 26s. buy? It cannot be judged on the present cost of living index, which fails to take account of a great many things which we today must regard as necessities for the ordinary families of this country, and it is not fair to consider the cost of living entirely from the point of view of the present index.
May I say what a privilege it has been to be associated with this Measure which is, I am sure, a very great step forward.

As has been rightly said by another hon. Member, we are only at the beginning. We have made a plan; it is for the right hon. Gentleman to carry it out. I am sure he will do so to the best of his ability, but we have many difficulties ahead. It is fortunate that this Measure has gone through with such wide cooperation from all parties, and with such a happy spirit. Nevertheless there there may be points in regard to which all of us have failed to foresee exactly how it will work out, and we shall need a number of qualities when this scheme is put into effect. The officials of the right hon. Gentleman will need a high degree of patience and courtesy. The insured persons will need a high degree of understanding, and a high degree of patience, too. This country as a whole will need a good, healthy, industrial life to make this scheme the success which it should be.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: An hon. Member said a little while ago that he thought Third Reading Debates were designed solely for the exchange of kindly and friendly compliments. I do not believe that. I believe, however, that when compliments have been deserved, they ought to be paid, and I begin by paying my compliments and congratulations to my right hon. Friend on having steered this great Measure, not merely so skilfully, but so quickly, to the stage which it has now reached. It would be difficult to exaggerate the important effect upon the development of our social history that, on the first occasion when the House of Commons—I think largely by common consent—is enacting an epoch-making Measure of social security, there should be in charge of our deliberations a man who knows the problems with which we deal from his own personal experience I think it true to say that there is no problem raised by this Bill now before us of which my right hon. Friend has not had first-hand experience in his personal as well as in his political career. We have had evidence of that at every stage. I need not remind the House that I have not agreed with everything my right hon. Friend has done. But even where I have differed, and differed rather deeply, as my right hon. Friend knows, I have recognised that he has been making an honest approach to a problem which he


understood, and that if he does not agree with me today, he will tomorrow.
Having said that—and my right hon. Friend knows that when I say these things to him, I say them in all sincerity—I wish to make a short contribution to the general Debate. I do not propose to refer again to the many discussions we have had, to the points on which we have differed, or to the points on which we have agreed. I think, however, that a Third Reading Debate can serve another function than conveying the congratulations which are deserved. I think we ought to see what it was that we set out to achieve in this Bill, and how far we have gone towards achieving it. Why is it such an epoch-making Bill? Because it has achieved the first, the basic, objective. For the first time in the social history of this country it has brought all the changes and chances of ordinary life, which have involved so many millions of our countrymen in undeserved adversity, into one general scheme designed to see that when such misfortunes occur, the results are not visited solely upon the unfortunate individual who happens to come nearest to them, but are spread among the community as a whole. The shock is thus borne as a whole, and the unfortunate victim no longer feels deserted by his friends.
An hon. Member opposite hoped that in the administration of the scheme, anyone who claimed benefit would come to feel that the State was his friend, and was not merely neutral. All too often in the past such a victim has felt, and with justification, that the community was his enemy, and that the community's design was to see that it did not share his misfortunes. The great merit of the scheme that we now have before us is that that state of affairs will be for ever at an end. Full social responsibility for poverty caused by social mal-administration or social inadequacy—that is what we have set out to achieve, and we have brought into one scheme children's allowances—although there is a separate Act—sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, and retirement benefit. All are covered by the same social insurance scheme, all paid for in a single contribution, all administered by the same administration, and all belong together, so that the problem is dealt with in a coherent way. Social insurance in the future will never be the "Thing of shreds and patches "That it has been in

the past. That certainly we have achieved.
When we come to consider whether we have actually achieved social security, as distinct from a unified scheme for social security, then I think we cannot be quire so complacent. Many speakers have said that this is only the beginning and not the end. They have gone on to explain that the passing of the Measure is only the beginning, and that we must then go on to administer it. I say to the House that this is only the beginning in quite another sense. People talk sometimes as though by the passing of this Bill we had achieved a social revolution. We certainly have not; we are at the beginning of a social revolution, not at the end of one. We have a long way to go before we achieve freedom from want and adversity.
I have sat through the whole of this Debate and have heard only two references to the actual scales in the Bill. One was by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). She compared the scales adopted by my right hon. Friend with those advocated by Sir William Beveridge in the famous Report which bears his name. I want to compare them with something else—with the level of subsistence figures assessed by the Assistance Board now, and assessed by the more enlightened poor law authorities. Remember that what we set out to do was to guarantee and ensure in the case of everyone who qualified by reason of some social misfortune, the maintenance of a reasonable minimum of subsistence, as of right, that is to say, without any test of means, so that there shall be no discouragement of saving, so that when a man falls sick, or becomes unemployed or considers what he can save for his old age, he does not say, "I had better not save too much, because if I save more than the next man, the State will give the- next man more than it gives to me." We, therefore, state that these payments shall be payments as of right, the only condition being whether the person qualifies for the benefit, whether he was really sick, genuinely unemployed, had really reached a certain age, or was retired from employment.
The Assistance Board in the old days did not do that. It took all kinds of means, the man's means, the family's means, or household means, into account. They no longer use quite the same crude


brutality as in earlier years. Much social agitation, and much social experience, taught even the most reactionary of us a lesson, and the harsher crudities of the means test were softened down. The means test that the Assistance Board now operates, is certainly not the means test of old, nor is it operated in the same way. Nevertheless, it is there. If one compares the benefits under this Bill with those paid by the Assistance Board in comparable circumstances, or by the more enlightened poor law authorities in comparable circumstances, one finds this. I have a lot of figures but do not want to trouble the House with them as I do not think it is necessary—everyone can find them for themselves. But we find, and this is beyond controversy, that these figures in the Bill are far below the figures thought by the Assistance Board and the more enlightened poor law authorities to be the necessary minimum. Therefore, the maintenance of the minimum standard of life which we set out to achieve by this social security scheme, cannot be achieved on these scales of benefit without recourse to supplementation by the Assistance Board.
I do not say that anyone under this scheme will get less than he got before. But the only reason I do not say that is because my right hon. Friend gave us the most explicit assurances that his regulations would be so framed that that would not result. But if we were left with the Bill as it stands, without the regulations which the Minister has power to make, and without the assurances he has given, we would have to say that the 42s. which has been taken as a kind of deadline throughout the Bill for all kinds of purposes, is below the level accepted now by the Assistance Board as the proper scale of relief. It is so for oil age pensions, it is so for sickness, it is so for unemployment. We cannot, therefore, say that we have achieved the target which we set for ourselves. We have not yet achieved a social insurance scheme which will provide, as of right, a benefit which will not need supplementation from some other source We have not got as far as that.
I am sure my right hon. Friend would be the first to admit that among the anomalies left by the Bill there are very hard cases. They are cases difficult to

justify if we consider them singly as we read them in our correspondence from constituents, and there are anomalies of people still outside the scheme. There is the widow, whose husband may have paid his insurance contributions from 1911 for 20 or 30 years and has then become unemployed and neglected to pay, or has been unable to pay, for the sufficient number of stamps. She loses the whole benefit, and my right hon. Friend does nothing for her yet. She can still get nothing. I do not want to multiply such cases. I picked that one out, but I am sure my right hon. Friend knows of these cases as well as I do, and knows how many there are.
How does that come about? It comes about because we have deliberately chosen to have what is called a contributory scheme, an insurance scheme, so that the test of whether one is entitled to be relieved from want in adversity, is whether one has paid enough contributions, whether there are enough stamps on one's card. I am not blaming my right hon. Friend for this. He had to choose between getting the machinery of the social security scheme on to the Statute Book and into operation quickly, or beginning all over again from scratch and trying to build up a new scheme. He made his choice. He chose to adopt the work that had been done so far. He continued it and improved it where he could, as much as he could, but had to have it quickly. In order to have it quickly, he had to take what was there, and develop it to the best of his ability. I am not complaining. I think he was quite right to do that. I think any of us faced with that problem would have made the same choice as he made. But it results in these anomalies.
When we come to consider the working of this scheme, I hope my right hon. Friend will not exclude from his consideration the advantages of having an altogether non-contributory scheme. Some people talk as though there were some difference in the finances of such a scheme, as though the money that comes into the social insurance fund and the money that comes into the Treasury came from different people. It does not. The only difference is the mode of collection. The Treasury owns not one single penny of revenue that does not come from exactly the same people as those who will be contributing to the social insurance fund. We are not spending private money when we


spend from the social insurance fund and public money when we spend from the Treasury. We are spending the same money in both cases—public, if one looks at it from one point of view, but private, when one considers from where it came in the first instance. There is not a fundamental difference of principle between the contributory and the non-contributory scheme. All schemes are contributory in the sense that the money to finance them comes from the citizens who make up the community, either in the form of stamps on a card, or of Income Tax on wages. It makes precious little difference to the man who has to pay, what form is adopted. Certainly there is no difference in the money that is collected.
But if we did not have the stamps and cards and did not pretend that there is some kind of difference between a contributory and non-contributory scheme, we would not have these anomalies. We would not have to stop to consider whether a man had paid enough stamps at the right time, through the right agency, and whether he had done it long enough. I should have thought that a non-contributory scheme was better. The hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset (Major Digby) thought we had established a scheme which gave equal social security to the mole catcher and the millionaire.

Major Digby: I did not intend to infer that the security was equal. I said that the benefits were equal.

Mr. Silverman: Let us say then that the hon. and gallant Member thought that the benefits were equal, but they are not. They are equal in the sense that the Ritz is open to the mole catcher and the millionaire. Of course, the benefits are the same in amount, but they are not the same in nature, in quality and in importance. I prefer the New Zealand way of dealing with these matters. If everyone is to be given exactly the same benefit they should not have taken from them exactly the same amount of contribution. The millionaire can part with 5s. a week far more easily than can the mole catcher. I should prefer to have, as in New Zealand, a graduated social Income Tax, in order to provide the fund. I cannot pursue that point in detail, or I should be ruled out of Order. I only want to compare the difference between on the one

hand either a non-contributory scheme or a contributory scheme based on a graduated contribution and on the other a flat rate contribution, with all the anomalies which inevitably result from having an insurance scheme of this kind on the basis we have adopted.
I repeat, in spite of what I have said, that we are today marking a real advance in the social history of our country. It has been said that the people of this country take their pleasures sadly. Looking at the state of the House today, and comparing it with the attendances on some other occasions, it occurs to me that we pitch our triumphant chants in rather too low a key. I think we are doing so today. We are here making a real advance. We have created a foundation upon which we can continue to build, and I hope we shall continue to build courageously and with vision, until in the end we have solved for the first time the problem of unnecessary poverty.

7.3 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I intervene only to join with other hon. Members in paying a compliment to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary for the way they have conducted this Bill through the House of Commons. The various deputations which the Minister has had to receive, like the representations made to him, were always received with generous consideration and kindly courtesy, and with as much sympathy as it was possible for him to accord in the light of the merits of each case. I agree with the suggestion which came from an hon. Member opposite that the Minister should not too closely concentrate the administration of this scheme. It has been suggested by more than one hon. Member that in the administration of the scheme, the personal contact between the officers in charge of it and the insured public should be maintained at as high a level as possible. I am certain that when the Minister comes to form his organisation, and to create the machinery for the administration of this great scheme, he will have due regard to the material available among the personnel of the approved societies, which, unfortunately, in my view, the Minister has decided not to use in the structure of this great scheme, I happen to be associated, as president, with a comparatively small but very live insurance benefit society, and I have persona] experience


of the valuable work done by those engaged in that work in their contact with the insured people. It would be a great pity if that personal contact were not maintained in the administration of this Measure. I am sure that the Minister will consider any opportunity that may arise of making use of the experience and local knowledge which has been accumulated over so many years by the agents of the various societies.
It is true that this Bill marks a great step forward in the social outlook of this country. It ought to be said in this House, before the Bill passes its final stage, that the structure of the Bill was laid down in the days of the Coalition Government, and an immense amount of examination of the possibilities of this great social scheme had been done with great care. We ought at least to remember the contribution which Sir William Beveridge made at the very beginning, in the Report he issued, prior to the introduction of a great social security scheme of this kind. In bringing the Debate upon this Measure to a conclusion, I am sure we all agree that the services of every person throughout the country who has made a contribution to the scheme —industrial and provident societies, insurance societies, and public organisations—by giving the Minister all the cooperation and assistance possible, should be acknowledged when the Bill becomes an Act.
It is a great pleasure to me to see a comprehensive Measure of this kind leaving the House of Commons in an atmosphere of friendship and good will, and the tribute paid by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) was eminently deserved. I was particularly gratified by the compliment paid by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I am sure that the Minister would agree that he would like to have it written down and signed, to keep as a permanent memento. It was generous and kind, and struck one or two notes on which there was substantial agreement between the hon. Lady and the Minister. This is the kind of atmosphere one likes to see. We are embarking upon a great measure of social security, which, notwithstanding what has been said about the financial consequences involved, opens up a new era of hope for the vast majority of the people

of this country. While the burden will be severe, I am sure that everyone will take the responsibility in the spirit manifested throughout the discussions in Committee and in the House. As one of the old Members of the House I wish the Minister the greatest success in the creation of his administration. I hope that he will exercise that wisdom, which we all know him to possess, in the creation of that machinery. I hope that at the conclusion of the five experimental years, if the Government have not vanished before then, there will be, through this Bill, a record of social advancement of the greatest possible credit to the people of this country.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Brown: I feel I must join with right hon. and hon. Members in the tributes they have paid to my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance. It has been truly said that circumstances and conditions throw up the man. I think that is applicable on this occasion, and that the circumstances and conditions have thrown up the man in my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). His intense humanitarianism, not only now, but also when he sat on the other side of the House, has always appealed to Members of the House. His success in piloting this Measure to its present stage is to a very large extent due, first, to his experiences in the coalfields of South Wales and, second, to the intense humanitarianism which he applies to all matters which he takes in hand. I pay my tribute to him on behalf of the section of the community who, in the past, have been sadly neglected. I refer to the old age pensioners. Since I became a Member of the House I have tried in every conceivable way to advance the cause and the claims of old age pensioners. At last we see some ray of hope for the old people. I venture to suggest that this Bill, if it does nothing else, has brought to the front the old age pensioners who hitherto have been at the back end of the queue.
During the early period when this Measure was being formed and discussed, I had the opportunity to talk over the matter with the Minister and on every occasion I was impressed by the great sympathy which he manifested for old people. Whilst he has not given us ail that we desire, by meeting us on every


point, he has certainly gone a long way towards meeting the needs of the people. The single pensioner will have his pension increased by 160 per cent, at one stroke in the near future, and married pensioners will receive an increase in their pension of no per cent. It is a great accomplishment that we in this country after six years of devastating and destructive war, whilst people on the Continent are trying to fix up Governments according to their ideas we in this country can legislate for the social requirements of our people in this way. From the point of view of the old age pensioners we have not attained our objective. This Measure, however, will give some relief and, in that connection, I hope the Minister will speed up the Regulations. At one stroke we are giving relief and improvement to at least 4,000,000 people. For that reason I pay my tribute and express my appreciation.
There is an idea prevalent in the country that when these regulations are applied, there will be no need for the Assistance Board. I plead with the Minister not to allow the Assistance Board to go out of commission. It was strongly objected to when it came into operation some years ago, but slowly and surely, by a simple and human approach to all the problems affecting our old people, the officers of the Board have won their way into the hearts of the people. I plead with the Minister that he should retain the Board and rechristen it. Call it not '" Assistance Board," but the " Welfare Board," and let it devote itself to attending to the needs of our old people. I hope the Minister will consider that matter. There are many other points that I could mention but I promised that I would not detain the House for more than a few minutes. Sincerely, and most profoundly, I pay my tribute to the Minister and his staff for the successful way in which this Measure has been piloted through its various stages. I see in this Measure now reaching its concluding stages the extinction of the last smouldering embers of the old poor law system which has been a curse and a blot upon the social legislation of this country. I hope the Minister will get the regulations into operation quickly. May the appointed day come soon in order that our old age pensioners may receive the benefits of this great Measure.

Mr. Gatlacher (Fife, West): That goes for me, too.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: This is a day of thanks and congratulation. I will start by thanking the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) for his graceful remarks about my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). I will not follow his remarks about reincarnation. All I will say is that in my next incarnation I hope I am not a representative of the insurance agents. Before making some general reflections on the Bill, I would like to say one or two things about its administration. A number of hon. Gentlemen have mentioned this point but I would like to be a little more specific than they were. The first point arises on Clause n. As the House will remember, on the Report stage we put forward an Amendment to reduce the waiting time of the self-employed from 24 days to three days. I think that was a very reasonable proposal; but the Minister is always rather fond of trumping our aces. He was not content with that suggestion and he went on and gave the self-employed the benefit of the linking up days of sickness. It is worth while to remember what these provisions are. There are two rules. There is the 13 weeks' rule and the "Two and six " rule. The 13 weeks' rule is this:
 A person shall not be entitled to either benefit for the first three days of any period … unless, within the period of 13 weeks beginning with the first of those days, he has a further nine days of interruption of employment.…
The "Two and six " rule is this:
… any two days of interruption of employment, whether consecutive or not, within a period of six consecutive days shall be treated as a period of interruption of employment…
Those are the two rules. The Minister says—and I am sure he is absolutely right —that the self-employed have expressed a wish to be treated in exactly the same way as the employed. If any person was to go out into the street and say to the first self-employed man he met, " Do you or do you not wish to be treated in the same way as an employed person? "I have no doubt at all that every single one would say, " Yes."If, on the other hand, one went to him and read out these extracts from the Clause and said, " Do you think it really is possible to apply this linking-up provision to self-employed


people, and how do you think it is going to work? "I am not sure that one would get such a confident answer. I strongly suspect that most self employed people are quite ignorant of this particular provision.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden asked some questions which have not yet been answered. He asked how this was to be administered and he instanced the case of the lonely farrier who lives on the top of a mountain. People who live in flat constituencies always think that those who live on mountains are fools. Those hon. Members who represent mountainous constituencies can tell them they are wrong. It may be because the Minister felt an implied slight on the mountaineers round Llanelly that he gave rather a tart answer. What he said was that he very well understood the linking-up provision at the age of 12. The boy is father to the man and I have no doubt that the Minister was a very charming and intelligent child and understood all these things very well. But let us get away for a minute from intelligent children and people living on the tops of mountains and come down to people whom we all know something about; I mean Members of Parliament. I would remind hon. Members that, in the Committee upstairs when we were discussing this question, there was a good deal of confusion, particularly in the right hon. Gentleman's own party, on the provisions of this Clause, and such an astute lawyer as the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) got very much a1 sea over it.
Let us suppose that the self-employed will be more studious and intelligent than the hon. Member for Hitchin and will understand these provisions. The real difficulty then begins and that is how the Minister is going to administer the scheme. There are two requirements for good administration. One is that any scheme should be simple, and the second is that it should be watertight, and by " watertight "I mean that the opportunities for fraud should be as small as possible. Obviously, I am not going to say that the self-employed are less intelligent or more fraudulent than anybody else—far from it—but there are peculiar difficulties in their case. May I take Members of Parliament, who, I understand, are self-employed, as an example? Supposing an

hon. Member had three days' illness at the beginning of a Session and he was certified by a doctor, it might well be that he could be ill in his constituency every Friday, Saturday and Monday for the rest of the Session. How is that to be checked up? I am not saying that any hon. Members are going to be fraudulent, but it would be open to an unscrupulous man to try to draw what might be termed an uncovenanted subvention to his £1,000 a year by these link-ups at the week-ends. It is a little difficult to see how the Minister is to get round these problems. All one can say about Members of Parliament is that, in addition to their ordinary occupational diseases, such as lassitude on Fridays and depression on Mondays, they are also subject to a good deal of temptation.
Then there is the question of the payment of benefit other than unemployment benefit, particularly during the transitional period. We have pressed in vain for more information about this, and the Bill itself is very vague. Clauses 46 and 69 are very general indeed. I am not going into the approved societies question all over again, but what one wants to know is how the hand-over is going to be worked. There are two slightly discouraging answers which we have had already. The Parliamentary Secretary disclosed upstairs that two committees had been formed to study this, but that, at the time when we were deliberating upstairs, one of them had not even met. I think that it is fair to assume that they cannot have got far yet. One other remark caused me some anxiety, and that was when the Minister was talking about the option of people to have a home service if they wished..The Minister said that he would set up literally hundreds of local offices. That sounds a lot, but, in point of fact, if we are to have an option on a home service, I should have thought we should require thousands of offices not hundreds, and the fact that we have that very general figure shows that the distributional basis has not been worked out, because, if it had been we may very well have had an answer within say 50 or 100 offices and not this meaningless figure. We ought to get something a little more precise.
It appears to be the Minister's intention to make use of the approved societies and all their full-time and part-time agents


in administering his scheme, and to use these people for exactly as long as he likes —which may be quite a long time—and then, when he has done with them, he will scrap the whole system. He will squeeze the orange and throw away the peel. The attractions of that are very obvious to the Minister, but whether they are so obvious to the people he is making use of I am not so sure and I can see difficulties arising. The Minister has hardly begun to squeeze the orange but the pips are already squeaking vigorously. I think one has to conclude that this is another instance, of which we have had several, of new Government policy—legislate first and think afterwards.
I turn from the administrative side to make a few short comments on the Bill as a whole. In the Debate in this House on the Coalition White Paper in November, 1944, the present Lord Privy Seal made a very interesting remark. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I do not believe that a party Government on the peacetime model could carry through a Bill like this without facing very grave perils." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 999.]
When I read that, I thought it a very curious remark because everyone remembers that, at that time, there was a very strong agitation for immediate legislation in spite of the fact that the crisis of the war was only just past. Thinking more deeply about it, I now believe the right hon. Gentleman was probably right, not for the actual reasons he gave, which were those of commonplace party controversy, but because what we are really doing is redistributing income, not from the rich to the poor, but redistributing it at very low levels. That is really the effect of this Bill, and, under full employment such as we now have, when all our resources are being used, it inevitably means certain real sacrifices to those who are in employment. The problem is to remedy social evils without imposing on people burdens which they feel are unacceptable. The inevitable consequence of imposing higher taxation than is acceptable is to weaken the resistance to rising prices and the result is inflation. There is also a political danger, because at any one time more people are putting pennies into the slot than are drawing out benefits. If prices do rise, of course, the people who really. suffer are the beneficiaries under this

scheme, because inflation results in the unplanned redistribution of income.
I feel that it may well be that this Bill itself can help us in our great task, not only of stopping inflation but of increasing the national income, because that is really what we have to do. If the Bill is rightly understood it will help, because the moral is to the material as three to one in peace time just as much as it is in war. What we are trying to do now is to build up the people's morale, to put under them a floor to ensure that, whatever happens, there is a certain minimum standard below which they cannot fall, and to give them sufficient confidence to go out and change their jobs if they want to and to strike out a line on their own in order to try to better themselves. That is a great conception, but I think it is a mistake to try to boil it down to just a list of benefits. That is the inevitable consequence of talking so much about insurance and the actuarial side. I am rather in agreement with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in that matter because, after all, no insurance scheme in the ordinary sense of the word would give exactly the same retirement pension,to those who enter at 16 as to those who enter at 55, and the distribution of contributions between State, employers and employed is after all, purely arbitrary. I do not believe in talking too much about insurance because if you do people will look at the benefits in the same way as an endowment policy which they have paid for entirely themselves.
People may forget that all the citizens of this country stand together in this scheme, and that we all owe duties to our fellow citizens. I will end by saying that I believe this scheme can work provided it is put across properly, and that it can give this country life and progress. But in order to do that, the people of this country have to realise that their duties to their fellow citizens are greater, rather than less, than they were before

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Earlier this afternoon the hon. Member for Chislehurst completely eclipsed the Fat Boy in " Pickwick Papers " —

Mr. George Wallace: If my hon and learned Friend will allow me, may I crave your protection, Mr.


Speaker? I am not a fat boy by any means. Furthermore, it is I who have the honour to represent Chislehurst, not the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) who made the remarks to which I think my hon. and learned Friend is alluding and with which I do not associate myself in any way

Mr. Hughes: I tender my most abject apologies to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. G. Wallace) for making the mistake as to the constituency for which he sits. It was the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) who, a little earlier this afternoon, completely eclipsed the Fat Boy in " Pickwick Papers " by attempting to make our flesh creep. He painted a picture of horror and of the ghastly things that would happen to us if this Bill were implemented and became law. Having harrowed our feelings, he got up and walked out and left us to our fate, but it was a very pleasant thing to realise that many other hon. Members remained to tell us of the great humanitarian Measure which is now before us. Many of them have pointed out that it is only a beginning. May I say that it is a good and a great beginning, and one of which any Minister or any Government may well be proud? But one of the most remarkable features of this Measure is its unity and the number of opportunities it confers upon its beneficiaries. It emphasises family obligations, it drops the disintegrating Means Test, it diminishes the agony of unemployment, it assists the sick, it encourages maternity, it provides solace and comfort for the aged, it helps the widow and provides security for all in the evening of their days. The unity of this Measure is one of its most remarkable features. I agree that the principle upon which it is based has been only reluctantly accepted. It is true that it was embodied in the White Paper of the Coalition Government, but in a less generous form. That White Paper did not go anything like so far as the present Bill in applying justice and mercy to the principles with which it is designed to deal
It was rather interesting to listen to the speeches which have been made in the course of this Debate and in the Standing Committee, and to note the gradual conversion of the hon. Members of the Opposition to what seems, now, to be

complete acceptance of this Bill. I recall that the right hon. Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law), at quite an early stage in these Debates and after paying some compliments to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of National Insurance, claimed that the Tories had a good record in this and that Labour was a most reactionary Government where national insurance was concerned. He compared the Government with an old couple who had waited long for their inheritance and then, having got their inheritance, did not know what to do with it. I deprecate, and I imagine that hon. Members opposite now deprecate, the intrusion of the party spirit into this Debate, and I was glad to note that most hon. Members opposite welcomed this Bill in a nonparty spirit. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) said that the people had waited long years for this Bill and that now he welcomed it in the form in which it was before the House. But we may recall that even at the date when this Bill received its First Reading, some of the newspapers supporting the Opposition described it as "Ill-balanced, extravagant and fearfully imprudent," and said that it was
 clearly intended to pick the pockets of the rich in order to secure the welfare of the poor.
I venture to suggest that it is a tribute to the manner in which the Minister has piloted this Bill through and the arguments which he has put before Parliament and the country, that statements of that kind are no longer used in regard to this Bill, and that critics now realise that it is one which is based upon, and designed to implement the principle of, the greatest good for the greatest number— not to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, but to secure a really rich life for all citizens, in the fullest and best sense of the word.
I do not propose at this late stage in the Debate to go into the Bill in detail —indeed, I fear it would be out of Order for me to do so—but I would point out that another of the very beneficial features of the Bill is that which provides for quinquennial consideration of the rates of benefit. That is a really elastic, statesmanlike and farsighted feature of the Bill, because it will enable its administration to keep pace with the advances of our civilisation. It will adjust itself to


economic changes, to price levels, to cost of living, to standards of living and to ideas and tastes in living—and who can tell what will be the conditions five years hence? The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden indicated that, in his opinion, the benefits which this Bill will undoubtedly confer may help forward the intellectual and psychological development of the people so that, five years hence, they will be a different kind of people from what they are today. This provision for a quinquennial consideration of the rates of benefit is one which will enable the administration of the Bill to keep pace with the development of the country.
I am greatly impressed by the magnitude of the Minister's task and by the effective way in which he is discharging it. It is worth recalling that others have attempted something similar in the past, but in a much smaller way, and the seed which was planted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) when he appointed the Commission out of which the Beveridge Report sprang, has now grown into a great tree. It has enabled the Minister to introduce this Bill, to implement that idea and, in my respectful submission, he is entitled to the very greatest credit for doing it. I hope that this Bill will receive its Third Reading without a Division.

7.40 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I would like to follow the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) for a few seconds if only to bring him up to date. I wish to say however that I support the Third Reading of this very great Bill and I would tell the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary that I think they deserve all the credit they have been given today, and a good deal more besides. I must say that some of the expressions which have been heard from the other side today have been in great contrast with the agreement which we really all feel. In the first place, we had an hon. Lady suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman's own party were trying to lure him to agree with them. On the other hand, we had the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) clenching his fist and banging an invisible tub. Perhaps it was a habit which he acquired in Bulgaria—I do not

know. Anyway, I think the House is generally agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, and I would like to say that I, too, wish him luck with this Bill.
However, as the Minister knows, I am not in agreement with everything in the Bill, nor am I in entire agreement with every hon. Member on this side of the House. I cannot associate myself fully with the belief that universality and absolutely rigid uniformity are quite the right way to go about this matter. I believe that the harm which will come of this Bill—and there is bound to be some— is a great deal less than the harm which would have come without it. I am quite satisfied about that. But I think that is a poor consolation. If I may be allowed for a few moments to reminisce, I cannot help going back to those early days in November, 1942, when the news was first announced over the Empire service of the B.B.C. that the Beveridge Report had been published. I do not suppose I have ever been, or am ever likely to be, further from civilisation than I was on that occasion. I was somewhere between Bir Hakim and the desert, I think. I must-say the inaptness seemed rather outstanding at that time because victory seemed so very far away, but now that victory is with us, and even as early as 1942, I think one can say that hopes for the future were kindled in the hearts of a great many people. Anyway, the way in which the " base wallahs " who had the time to do it, if nobody else, went at the Beveridge Report was remarkable. In fact, so greedily did they go at it that I was rash enough, not having read the Report, but only the newspaper reports of it, to broadcast from Cairo and say what I thought about it. At the risk of " old soldiering "The House to too great a degree, I would like to read one sentence from that broadcast, because I think it applies to this Bill to which we are giving the Third Reading today. This is what I said;
 We must keep on reminding ourselves that when this is all over we.shall have to build a new life, not fit for heroes to live in because no one will ever admit himself a hero, but for you and me to finish our lives in, for our families and for our children's children. t believe the Beveridge Plan is a big step in the right direction, but it is our bounden duty to make sure it is the best one. If not, let us find one that is.
Today I cannot help asking myself whether we have achieved that, and I think there is no doubt that this Bill will


leave this House a very great deal better than the Report was. In saying that I do not mean to detract in the slightest degree from the Beveridge Report, which, if not the greatest White Paper ever published in the sense of greatness, at least must win pride of place for sheer bulk if nothing else. It was a great review of our existing system and it certainly produced an idea which the Minister has used to very fine advantage.
There are, however, one or two matters in particular about which I think the Minister knows only too well I am a little perturbed; Throughout this Bill almost between every line one can read the word " compulsion."I agree that it is impossible in the very early stages, when endeavouring to incorporate as many people as possible, to give everybody complete liberty whether they come into the scheme or not, but I believe there are certain types of people who will eventually have to come in only voluntarily. I am sure that there will be some people who will find this scheme extremely difficult. The self-employed have been mentioned, and there are others as well. In particular, I would like to mention the single person who has a housekeeper who goes sick. I mentioned that point in Committee and I think that that is one class of person who will find this scheme extremely difficult to manage. I am also in great agreement with what my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said with regard to war pensions. I also appreciate what was said by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) both in Committee and today, that it is hard to differentiate between industrial injuries and war injuries. I do not say that there should be complete discrimination there. I believe that the work done and the injuries suffered by those in industry during the war merit just as considerate treatment as those who have suffered from the enemy.
This has been an interesting Debate, and many of the points I hoped to raise have already been covered, so I shall not detain the House much longer. I would, however, like to say one word on the whole principle of national insurance as I see it. I believe national insurance is an enormous gamble. It is an enormous gamble in that, from the point of view of the State, it is a gamble on certainties or very near certainties, because when one

is dealing with averages of millions the eventual figures become almost certain. With the individual it is also a gamble, but it is not a gamble on a certainty. It is a gamble with unemployment, sickness, death, maternity and with every aspect of this Bill. I am not really satisfied in my mind that because this system of gambling is placed in the hands of the State, therefore, automatically it is put upon a higher plane. I would go so far as to say that it tends to be put on a lower plane unless we ensure that the contributor has additional safeguards. I believe this Bill has many of the safeguards, although I am not satisfied that they are all there. I believe as time goes on this great scheme which is being launched by this Bill will have its growing pains. We have the assurance of the quinquennial review, and I would only ask the Minister to bear in mind the possibility of perhaps announcing to Parliament periodically a little more often than every five years how progress is going.
In particular, I would like him to bear in mind the whole time a matter which I had to raise at a very inconvenient moment to the House and particularly to the Minister on the Report stage, and that concerns old people who continue to work after the age of 65. I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) said about the old people. The more we can do for them the better pleased I shall be, but I still believe that those people who go on working after reaching pensionable age will be contributing too much for the scheme to be absolutely fair should they die before retiring. Those are the people I particularly hope the Minister will watch, and I hope he will keep us informed of progress.
Last of all, I believe administration is the key note to making the scheme work. It is not only a matter of the approved societies and the friendly societies. That rather sad aspect of the passage of this Bill is, I hope, dead for ever so far as this House is concerned. I still believe there are some people who, in the past, have done wonderful work in national insurance but who will suffer as a result of this Bill. In view of what occurred in this House yesterday, I think we should bear in mind that we are probably taking away £13 a year from all the part-time employees of the approved societies who have been administering


national insurance, at a time when we are increasing our own salaries. I am not at all sure we are justified in doing that. I know it is difficult for the Minister to guarantee taking on everybody who has worked in administering those schemes. However, I believe he should do everything in his power to try to get those people incorporated into the scheme; if not, he should give them fair compensation for what they will lose each year.
This scheme can be either a milestone in progress or a millstone round the neck of the nation. I believe it to be a milestone. It will be a milestone so long as the nation accepts it in the same way as the first Report indicated it should be accepted, namely, as an inspiration and an opportunity for honest work to earn social security. The alternative is appalling to think about, and we must not let it become that. I do not believe a country which has stood what it has during the war will let itself down in peace. That is the issue before us today, during the Third Reading of this very great Bill. The cry to the nation should be, " Here you are; you now have what you have been longing for We know it is not perfect; we believe it could be better, and we shall try to make it so. But you, too, have a part to play. Let us pray that neither of us fails."

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Poole: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) said that in November, 1942, he was to be found somewhere near Bir Hakim. If he had travelled some 900 miles due South he would have come to the oasis of Kufra, and, sitting under one of the palm trees, he might have found me. When the news of the Beveridge Report seeped through to that rather distant spot I, who had always taken a great interest in national insurance and social security, thought that at last we had something really concrete to which we could look forward when we returned from the war. In offering my congratulations to the Government, to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Parliamentary Secretary tonight I would like to do so, not only on account of this great Bill which they have sponsored and the opportunities which it has given, but because they have, by their action tonight provided me and

many hundreds of thousands of other ex-Servicemen with what we had looked forward to as an opportunity in the postwar world. I do not want to fall into the difficulty which many hon. Friends en this side of the House are apt to do when congratulating a Minister on a Measure with which they heartily agree, that is, to start off with great praise and then drift into a criticism of the Bill. I feel this Bill is a tremendous step and affords a big opportunity for the whole of this country.
Most of the points which could be raised have already been touched on during the Debate today. However, I do want to comment on two or three points, and I hope they will not be too repetitive. Great play has been made by almost every speaker, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) on the importance of the administration of this Bill. Having had the honour to be a Member of the Standing Committee, I know the Minister is well aware that today he is in the position of the promoter of a big enterprise who has received the financial and other support necessary, but has still to launch out and turn the plan into a concrete reality. The Parliamentary Secretary called attention to the fact that during the very difficult transitional period they would look to the insurance community to help. The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary know that I, for one, very much regret certain decisions which have been taken about the administrative machinery. Be that as it may, though I am in no way qualified to speak for the insurance community, I am quite certain the Government will receive from all the approved societies, both industrial and friendly societies, the maximum amount of cooperation. What I am concerned about is that during this transitional period the Minister will ask of the approved societies, and particularly the industrial life societies, more than they can, in fact, undertake. I would ask him to remember that it is not practicable for them to readjust their organisation to tike on and to administer these additional benefits when they are not to be included in the longterm administration of the scheme. We have heard about the committees set up with the insurance community and the work that those committees are doing I hope we shall have


reports from time to time, because what I am afraid of is that in this transitional period the insurance community will be asked to do more than it can. I hope, too, that the. Minister will not be disappointed in the calibre of the agents administering the scheme whom he expects to find and take over from the approved and friendly societies. The agents who have actually "administered the scheme have been the ordinary industrial life agents, and a great many of them, the best ones in particular, will continue to do their work.
I now turn to two points of detail which have not been referred to unduly in the Debate today. Under Clause 22 of the Bill, which deals with death grants, there is still considerable doubt amongst many people as to how this Clause, once the Bill becomes law, will affect industrial insurance policies In the Committee the Minister realised this doubt which has arisen, and undertook to introduce legislation before the Bill becomes law, in order to clarify the position. I do not necessarily accept the view that, once this Bill becomes law, an ordinary industrial life policy insuring the life of another will become illegal or unnecessary. But in view of the discussions which have taken place, it is essential that that position should be clarified When the right hon. Gentleman winds up tonight I hope he will say something about the new legislation I understand he intends to introduce, which he undertook to do in the Committee. Not only are many hundreds of thousands of insurance agents affected —I admit they are of secondary importance—but there are hundreds of thousands of policy holders who are concerned, not about the paid-up value of their policy but whether their policies can continue after this Bill becomes law. It is a very important point, affecting a large number of people. I do urge that we should have a clear answer in regard to the position under the new legislation about which we were told in Committee.
Earlier in the afternoon the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under Lyme (Mr. Mack) raised a point in regard to compensation to insurance agents. I should like to associate myself with him in the plea which he made. Once the Parliamentary Secretary has got over this rather unusual alliance between the hon. Member and myself I hope he will accept our plea.

When we discussed it in Committee the position was made quite clear by the Minister, who said that an opportunity would be given for people who were displaced from their normal employment because of this Bill to find employment under the Government. There is, however, one class of persons to whom I wish to refer who will not be so fortunate. They are the men who were employed part time as insurance agents under the old National Health scheme. Under this Bill the Minister does not intend, and has no power, to compensate those who were only part time employees. As was pointed out upstairs, this means that a man who was employed 51 per cent, of his time on National Health Insurance work will get compensation, whereas the man who was only occupied 49 per cent, will not. I agree that the line must be drawn somewhere, but I feel that very great hardship will be caused by this new arrangement to many people who have done great work under the National Health scheme in the past. I do not ask the. right hon. Gentleman to reply to this tonight, but when he makes his regulations regarding compensation I hope that he will give full consideration not only to whole time but also to part time insurance agents who were employed by the approved societies. I do not wish to prolong the discussion on this point, because my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, speaking with great authority, has made the point very clearly. I ask the Minister to consider what the hon. Member said, with which I associate myself.
One last word. I urge that we in this House should not, because we have passed this Bill, this great new Measure which is to pass into law, feel any great sense of complacency. I have heard hon. Members on both sides of the House say what a wonderful scheme this is, because it provides security and freedom from want. I would not go so far as that. I would say that it is a great start, a great foundation on which we can build. It is absolute nonsense for us to pretend that in these days, because we have promised an old couple 42s. a week, we are giving them complete security against want or necessity for the future. Do not let us think, because we have brought in this Bill, that all the old people, the sick or the unemployed will have complete security and freedom from necessity. They will not. They will be far better


off than they have ever been before, and I wholeheartedly offer my congratulations to the Minister and.to the Government for what they have done, but let us remember that we have a great deal still to do, and a long way to go, before we can honestly say to this country that all the old people, the sick and the unemployed are free from necessity and want.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: May I briefly associate myself with the shower of congratulations that have been given to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for the work they have done since the Second Reading of this Bill? In welcoming the Bill, I would like to associate myself with the concluding words of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole). I agree with him that this Bill will not give complete security to the old people of this country, nor to the sick or unemployed. It will give them a substantially greater measure of security than they have ever had in the past.
I was sorry this afternoon to hear the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) strike a discordant note. I do not object to the hon. Member holding the point of view that he does, but I thought he was a little unkind in his concluding remarks, in accusing hon. Members on this side of the House of engaging in mass bribery at the General Election. That was quite uncalled for and quite undeserved, because if the charge be true it certainly does not lie only on this side of the House, but on all parts of the House. If there was one document published during the war which raised the morale of the people of this country in those dark days, it was the Beveridge Report. One was led to believe that whatever party differences there might be on other issues, this issue of the Beveridge Report and its implementation at the earliest possible moment was the general desire of all parties, inside and outside the House. I therefore thought it was rather unkind of the hon. Member for Orpington to say what he did, but after all, it is an opinion which he is perfectly entitled to hold, and though I disagree with him I have no objection to his taking that point of view.
This Bill today assumes quite a different aspect from that which it had on the occasion of its Second Reading some

months ago. It was my privilege on that occasion to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I had one or two words to say about it. I believe that the self-employed will be grateful to my right hon. Friend for having brought them into line with the other sections of the people who are covered by the Bill. I believe that they are entitled to be regarded on the same basis, and they will be genuinely grateful for the step my right hon. Friend has taken to bring them in. It has been said in a number of speeches this afternoon that we are beginning a new adventure. Although we have had a measure of experience in the past, our future experiences will be quite new, and the success of this Measure will largely be determined by the manner in which my right hon. Friend and his Department administer it. I want to remind him, if he needs reminding, that the trade unions of this country have a long and honourable record in the administration of unemployment and National Health insurance in the 35 years gone by. I have reason to believe that their administration has met with the approval of their members throughout the country. If my right hon. Friend can bring into his Department's administration the quality which those of us who have been acquainted with him for some years know he possesses, he will achieve the success which this Measure deserves. Reading through the Bill, I find that there are no fewer than ten occasions on which my right hon. Friend will be called upon to draft Regulations. His success, and the success of his Department, will be determined by the Regulations which they draft.

Mr. O. Poole: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he said there were ten occasions. There are 97.

Mr. Jones: I will certainly not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman on that, but rather will I say that there are a substantial number of sets of Regulations which my right hon. Friend will be called upon to draft. The drafting of these Regulations will require courage and imagination, and I hope my right hon. Friend will exercise the imagination we know him to possess. In conclusion I would like to read to the House a short passage written by a trade union official quite recently in connection with this Measure:
 We are on the eve of a great adventure. As one who has spent a lifetime in the admini-


station of social insurance, and as one who was the original pioneer of 'all-in' insurance, I view with grave anxiety the taking out of the hands of the working class organisations the vital welfare of the sick and needy and placing not only sickness benefit but also unemployment, industrial injuries, old age pensions, and transferring them to a body which has had little experience in this direction and whose knowledge of and outlook of the workers cannot be compared to the existing administration which gives a substantial measure of democratic control as against bureaucracy.
That is the view of a trade union official who has spent a lifetime in trade union approved society work. The Minister can prove this official to be completely wrong by the humane way in which he administers the scheme.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) complained that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) not only struck a discordant note, but criticised hon. Members opposite for having indulged in mass bribery by offering the Bill to the country. I am grateful to the hon. Member opposite for pointing out that there was no division between the parties in the undertaking given to implement the Beveridge Report. On a more convenient occasion I might perhaps repeat the charge made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, but I agree with the hon. Member opposite that there is no ground for it on the present occasion.
It is gratifying to me to have been asked to wind up the Debate for this side of the House because the Tory Reform Committee, the body with which I work, came into existence in the last Parliament in order to secure the adoption of the Beveridge Report by the then Government. There was a rather colourless Resolution submitted to the House by representatives of all three parties, including the present Lord Privy Seal. We regarded it as not sufficiently strong in its acceptance of the Beveridge Report and put down another Resolution. I give that fact as evidence of the fact that the Bill which is now receiving its Third Reading has had the support of all parties in this House.
The Minister has been rightly congratulated on the Parliamentary skill with which he has piloted the Bill. I am sure that he would be the first to admit that a

Bill so largely agreed as is this one is not a very great test of his eloquence or of his adroitness. I suppose there can have been few Measures of this magnitude and importance on which there have been so few Divisions, either in Committee or in this House. As one looks back to the Second Reading one finds that a good many of the points expressed by hon. Members on this side of the House have been accepted and are now incorporated in the Bill We have reason to feel reasonably satisfied about the position of the self-employed. The cost will, of course, be heavy, and I am bound to say that we do not yet know how the sickness benefit will be administered among the self-employed in order to avoid abuse. My hon. Friends asked that the self-employed should be accorded better treatment than they were in the Bill as originally introduced, but it was obvious from the speeches of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary that there will be great administrative difficulties in preventing abuse of the Fund. We shall naturally await with interest, if not with anxiety, the regulations which the right hon. Gentleman will make, to ensure that there is as little abuse as it is possible for good administration to ensure.
I will say nothing on the subject of the friendly societies, except that when successive Governments have come under the influence of the bureaucracy they have always felt there were great advantages in having one centralised organisation. On the other hand, hon. Members not in office and in contact with public opinion have always been impressed with the fact that a large number of people in the country have given all their spare time to the work of the friendly societies and that those people bitterly regretted that a great reform of this kind should be carried out at the cost of those friendly societies. It is more than a coincidence that, at the last General Election, hon. Gentlemen opposite were approached by the friendly societies, and that many gave a pledge on the subject; and that we, now in the Opposition, have had a great deal of pressure brought upon us, during the General Election and subsequently, to try to procure the incorporation of the friendly societies in the administration of the scheme.
I come now to Clause 62. I think the right hon. Gentleman would be fully justified in saying to us that, over the last


25 years, a number of different expedients had been tried, in order to deal with the problem of long-term unemployment and that no satisfactory solution for it had been found in the past. There is only one way to deal with long-term unemployment and that is to provide employment. In considering this matter, we must think of the White Paper on Full Employment. I am one of those who believe that, thanks to the late Lord Keynes, we know how to prevent a recurrence of long-term mass unemployment, except when there is some special cause, such as the closing down of a mine.
During the discussion of this Clause, there was what seemed to be a large scale revolt among the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters. Because no scheme for extended unemployment benefit beyond the scope of the Bill was satisfactory, we tried, at the risk of going outside the Bill, to devise a means by which the different Government Departments could cooperate to ensure that there was no long term large scale unemployment in particular areas of the country. I would still say that this is a thoroughly bad Clause. It means that men who are out of work through no fault of their own are compelled to go before a tribunal, which will decide whether or not they are to continue to draw standard benefit, according to a number of criteria which cannot be laid down with any. precision. There is no guarantee that the same principles will be applied in different parts of the country. I prophesy that the day will come when the Government will bitterly regret having introduced a Clause of this kind which is completely out of keeping with the whole of the rest of the Bill.
There is also the question of the death grant, upon which I spoke at some length both in the Second Reading Debate and in the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of National Insurance and the Prime Minister gave me an undertaking that steps would be taken to ensure that, so far as funeral expenses were concerned, there should be no exploitation of the death grant by those who provide the funerals. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has been looking into that problem, and perhaps he may be able to say something about it when he speaks tonight. I also pointed out that the whole question of industrial assurance must be profoundly affected by the introduction by

the State of the compulsory provision of a death grant, which was the original purpose for which industrial assurance came into existence. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be yet in a position to indicate the line that the Government propose to take upon this subject, but I would remind him that it is a matter which will have to be dealt with, and that he has promised to deal with it.
I come to the question of the cost of the scheme—first, the pure finance of it, and secondly, its real cost in goods, man-hours and materials. As far as the pure finance of the Bill is concerned, I have argued—and I believe it is true to say— that an insurance scheme of this kind is, in fact, only a transfer of wealth from one part of the community to another. It is a transfer from the young, the able-bodied and the employed to the old, the sick and the unemployed. In so far as it is a transfer of wealth, it is not an additional burden upon the community as a whole, but it is, of course, an additional burden upon certain sections of the community, and if you transfer the weight, as any hiker will tell you, it makes almost as much difference as an actual increase in the amount of weight carried. We have to consider how far it will be possible to go, or would be desirable to go, in. imposing burdens upon the more productive part of the community for the benefit of those who, for one reason or another, are unproductive. I feel that under this Bill we have probably gone as far in that direction as it will be possible to go by compulsion. It does leave, of course, a great realm open for voluntary insurance by those who wish to make voluntary arrangements to ensure against any of these hazards. As far as the self-employed are concerned, it has been said many times today that the burden of 6s. 2d. a week will bear very heavily upon those sections of the self-employed who have the smallest incomes.
But I am more concerned with the burden which this insurance scheme will throw upon the Exchequer. After all, those who contribute know that they will get something in return. In the case of the Exchequer, this is only one of a number of different and extremely heavy burdens which are being thrown upon the Exchequer. Many of them, such as education and housing, have a more direct effect upon the future prosperity and


health of the country than a scheme of ' this kind, which is primarily a scheme for the relief of the casualties of life. I hope that we shall have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the near future, a general conspectus of what the total burden of all the social services is likely to be over the coming years.
Having said so much about the great cost of this scheme, I have to ask myself and the House whether it would have been possible for this scheme to have cost less. Except in one particular, the answer, I think, is. No. As far as unemployment is concerned, this Measure actually increases by very little the unemployment benefit which is at present payable to the unemployed. In fact, when we take into account the increase in the cost of living, and still more the increase in the cost of small luxuries, such as beer and tobacco, there really has been no increase in the benefit. In regard to sickness benefit, all that is being done under this Measure is to put the sick man on a level with the unemployed man, and who will say that the sick man is not in need of as much money to sustain himself as the man who is perfectly fit and just happens to be out of work?
The real increase in the cost arises out of the retirement pensions. By 1958 the retirement pensions will amount to £301 million a year, or 45 per cent, of the total expenditure under the Bill. That arises out of the alarming fact that the birthrate of the country has so far declined that the number of the aged is perpetually increasing, while the number of those who have to work to support them is already diminishing. There was only one major economy which my hon. Friends and I felt that we could make without really depriving anybody of what he or she required under this Measure, and that was to limit both the scope and the amount of the death grant. The Amendment which we moved, and which was not accepted, would have economised the burden upon the Exchequer by something not very far short of £150 million spread over a number of years.
I pass from the financial cost of the scheme to what I may call the real burden; I mean the increased consumption of food, clothes, and houses. All of us now accept the Keynesian view of how to maintain full employment, and that it is

in times of depression that expenditure should be increased and not reduced, as has been done in the past. Therefore, so far as this Measure will help to steady the demand for consumption goods at all times, it will tend to even out the booms and slumps of employment and as such is, we believe, economically sound. But at the present time we are not dealing with a problem of mass unemployment. On the contrary, we are confronted with a problem of shortage of labour over the country as a whole.
We have to. recognise that this country has been impoverished by the loss of its overseas investments which brought us in £200 million a year before the war. Therefore, if we are to get back even to the standard of living that we had in 1938, when we had a million unemployed, it will be necessary for us to export at least 50 per cent, more than we were in 1938 It was Sir Godfrey Ince, of the Ministry of Labour, who pointed out in a speech at the weekend that already our labour force is diminishing. Whereas in 1939 the school leavers coming into industry were 417,000, they have in the present year fallen to 335,000, a reduction of 82,000 recruits to industry in seven years; and by 1950 the reduction will have been still further to 300,000. Add consideration of the raising of the school leaving age next year, and the continuance of conscription which was announced by the Government today— if I may say so, a most wise decision in my view—both, however, will withdraw more men from industry. We have to realise that the effect of this Measure is going to be to increase the demand in this country for consumption goods at a time when there are very few consumption goods available and when the working course in this country is already diminishing and is going to diminish rapidly in the years to come.
This Bill will divide more equitably amongst the people of the country such wealth as there is; but if there is to be any substantial increase in the general standard of living it must come—it can only come—out of a great increase of production of wealth by the community as a whole. That is a task to which we have got to put our hands. It is one that, I believe, this country can accomplish, but if is the duty of all of us to show to the country plainly that this Measure, in itself,


is only a more equitable distribution of the wealth that exists at the present time. It is by no means certain we can get back to the standard of living we had before the war; if we are to have the standard of living we desire, and greatly increased social services of all kinds, then they must come from a great increase in the production of wealth in this country as a whole.
The actuarial basis of this scheme is a matter upon which the Minister has prided himself, and I would congratulate him upon the constancy and courage with which he has resisted the pressure, chiefly from his own side of the House, but, perhaps, from all parts of the House, to give specially favourable consideration to this category or that; which would have meant a departure from the actuarial basis of the scheme. But he will bear in mind that he has amalgamated the sickness fund, the unemployment fund and the pensions fund, and that the solvency of this great fund depends upon the maintenance of full employment in this country. If there is any failure by His Majesty's Government to maintain full employment, then this fund, upon which the aged and the unemployed and the sick all depend, will go bankrupt. Let there be no illusion about it. If unemployment on a great scale does recur, the Exchequer will not be in a financial position to come to the assistance of that fund, nor shall we be producing enough goods to maintain the unemployed, the sick and the aged at their present standard of living.
Before I resume my seat I should like to say that I support this Bill because I believe it to be a great Measure of social justice. I believe that it is another step forward in the direction in which this country has been moving with the general acceptance and consent of all parties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) was the author of the Education Act, which is the real foundation upon which the Britain of the future will be based. Speaking in the Standing Committee upstairs on this Bill, he said:
 We on this side " —
that is the Conservative Party—
 have been moving deliberately towards what has b'"n so felicitously described as a classless society. This is the object of the Education Act, and the Bill we have before us today."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 12th March, 1946; c. 195.]

8.36 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance-(Mr. James Griffiths): We have reached the concluding stages in this House of the Bill which "The Times "Today rightly and properly described as
 one of the great legislative Measures of the century.
It has been for me a very great privilege and a very great honour to have had the opportunity to pilot this Bill from its Second Reading through the Committee and Report stages to what I hope, when I have concluded, will be a unanimous Third Reading. I am very grateful to hon. Members in every part of the House for the very kind things which they have said about myself, and about my very good, hard-working colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to share, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would like to share, these thanks with those people to whom he and I both owe so much, the staff of the Department. In the ten months during which I have had the privilege to be Minister of National Insurance, I have had to work myself, and have had to ask my staff to work, upon three great tasks; upon creating and bringing into being an organisation which will enable us to pay family allowances on 6th August this year—and that has been a very great task.—and upon the preparation of and piloting of two great Measures through this House, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill, and the Bill which we are discussing tonight.
It has been ten months of hard work. I believe that it has also been ten months of solid achievement, and I am indeed grateful for the way the staff have responded in those hectic months. It has been work which has brought its own enjoyment to every one of us. Thirty-five years have gone by since, in this House of Commons, we began to build the system of social insurance, which tonight we shall be bringing together, and weaving into a unified and coordinated pattern. Almost every year during that period has seen the addition of some Bill, or some amendment of the law, to what became and still is a piecemeal system of social insurance. Tonight we begin a new chapter, as we give birth to this new comprehensive, coordinated and unified scheme of social insurance In my final speech to this House on this Measure, I commend it in the conviction that this can


become a real charter of social security for the whole of our people.
I should like to begin by expressing my personal disappointment at the fact that, tonight I know when we are rejoicing, there will be some people who are disappointed with this Bill. Hon. Members have expressed concern about the level of benefits, and there will be persons not included in this Bill who believe quite sincerely provision ought to have been made for them. They have pressed their claims upon me. In the course of the last ten months I do not think I have refused to receive any deputation from a responsible body outside, or from a group of Members in this House. They have pressed their cases upon me, and I have given the fullest consideration to them, and I hope that they will do me the kindness now of believing that it is with reluctance that I have had to say " no."
I want to say something upon the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) in a speech delivered with great force. Tonight, for once, he and I are in complete agreement. When the Beveridge Report was published in 1942, Sir William Beveridge convinced us, among other things, that the best kind of scheme suited to the British character, and which would be most acceptable to the British temperament, was an insurance scheme based upon the traditional contributory principles which we have developed in this country over the last 35 years—that is contributions from the insured persons, from the employer and from the State. If we accept that system, and if that is the system which is most acceptable to our people, and if that is the system which they will welcome most, because it gives them the feeling that the benefits they get are a right, there are definite limitations to what I can do in that way.
In the very early stages, as my hon. Friends know, I used to worry them in the Lobbies of the House and in Committee by asking them to tell me from their experience of working among miners, railwaymen and people in all walks of life what was the maximum contribution people would stand for. In the contributions I have gone as high as I possibly can. The contribution for the employed person is now 4s. 11d. and has

become 6s. 2d. for the self-employed. Those are the limits of contributions, and they are fiat rate contributions, which the man earning £3 10s. od. a week pays, as well as the man earning £9 a week. It is 6s. 2d. for the barrow man selling flowers at Charing Cross, and 6s. 2d. for the barrister earning £10,000 or £20,000 a year. I think that all of us—because this is a scheme which affects all of us— must watch its progress with great care during the next five years, and, when we come to review it, give serious consideration to the possibility of devising some way of financing the scheme in which the contributions will be better equated to capaciy to pay. In an insurance scheme of this kind, in which we aim at comprehensive cover, we shall inevitably find that there will be gaps. I have come to the conclusion after my experience of the last ten months, and with a background experience of 25 years, that we cannot cover every contingency in an insurance scheme. Therefore, there must be something else.
As hon. Members know, it is the intention of the Government during the lifetime of the present Parliament to complete this scheme. Family allowances are now on the way to coming into operation, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill is in another place, this Bill will have its Third Reading tonight, and the Minister of Health is piloting through Standing Committee a scheme which is closely related to this one and must be integrated with it—the great National Health Service. Later, in the lifetime of this Parliament there must be a Bill to round off and fill in the gaps, a Bill to create a form of national assistance which will both settle these benefits and provide for those who are outside its cover. I therefore at the outset offer these few words, for I think it is important to remember, and I have now convinced myself of this that we have reached almost the limit of what we can do in insurance and in the future we will have to think again of the fundamental principles if we are to get the comprehensive scheme which we desire.
A very large number of points have been raised this evening. I do not think, without speaking for an inordinate length of time, I could deal with all of them. May I begin by saying I know perfectly well that under this Bill I have the power to make a very large number of regula-


tions. I think one hon. Member tried to count them and arrived at the conclusion it was over 70.

Mr. Molson: Ninety-seven.

Mr. Griffiths: Anyway it is somewhere pretty near 100. I do not want to argue this point, but it may be said that this is a wrong way to do things. I just want to observe that if this House is to survive as a great democratic institution, one of the things it has to see to is that, in legislation, it must endeavour to keep up with the pace of the masses of the people. If this Bill had been drafted in the old-fashioned way it could not have been got through the Committee in less than two years. I know it is a great responsibility upon a Minister to have to frame these regulations, and in many ways it would be easier and better for the Minister and certainly for his Department, if I may say a word for the bureaucrats, to have everything in the Bill than to have to make regulations. However, we have adopted that method and there will be a large number of regulations. I have already indicated in the House the safeguards which we are adopting for the purpose of enabling the people who are affected to make their voices heard and their views known, and also the methods by which the House of Commons can in the long run have the last word on any of these regulations. I, therefore, say we shall do our best to present these regulations in the simplest form possible and to see that the machinery provided will be really effective to enable the people affected by them to present their views.
I should like to say one other word on this. One or two Members have asked me that, when the Measure begins to operate, I should use every means in my power to issue literature and use instruments already fashioned for making the Bill known to the people. It has been suggested that the B.B.C. might be used for making the provisions of this Bill known to the people. I want to assure Members in every part of the House that no one is more conscious of that than I am, and I have already begun discussions on how best to achieve it. I want to put this scheme simply to everyone. Millions of people will be affected. I shall do my best to see that the literature that is prepared will be the best possible, in order that before the Bill becomes operative, people will be enabled to understand

clearly what it means. I am told that when my great compatriot, David Lloyd George, got his Bill through the House, he created an organisation of propaganda throughout the whole country to make the Bill known. Whether that is the best way to do it I do not know, but I do give an assurance that I will do everything in my power to make the Bill as easily understood as possible by the bulk of the people in the country.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) was concerned about how the self-employed would understand the sickness benefit rule which links up the two days in six within the 13 weeks. Well, I do not think that self-employed persons, which include Members of Parliament, solicitors, shopkeepers and the like, will find great difficulty in understanding what every coalminer in the country understands. There is no need for a contributor to understand it. A man who makes a claim for sickness benefit has to prove it by medical certificate. Whether his benefit links up in such a way as to give him the first three days is something which he need not bother about, unless he wants to check it. It can be done simply by the officer. In fact, it is done now with regard to unemployment benefit. I can assure the House that there will be no difficulty whatever in explaining the matter —

Mr. R. A. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman says that there will be no difficulty. Sir William Beveridge and the late Government dilated at great length upon the difficulties put before them by the administrators. I based my case simply on the great volume of evidence which exists that there will be difficulty, and I am, therefore, glad to hear that it has been resolved.

Mr. Griffiths: I was not referring to that; I was referring to the question of the two days in six, which link up with the 13 weeks. This link-up does not make the problem of administration greater or less. When an employed contributor claims sickness benefit, and claims that he is incapacitated, there is a check on whether he is incapacitated. That is done by his employer. But if he is self-employed he has, of course, no employer, and there is not the same check. We have made the sickness benefit a benefit which can link up within 13 weeks by the. two in six rule. I do not


seek to minimise in any way the real seriousness of the administrative problem of the check and control of sickness benefit, but I believe it can be solved. Since I was going to reduce it, I thought I ought to go the whole hog and put the self-employed person on the same level as those in Class I.
I have been asked about overlapping benefits, which is another very difficult problem. This was referred to in the Beveridge Report, and in the Coalition White Paper. The position is that we are flow providing a wide range of benefits which are bound to overlap. We are also making provision, for the first time, in our benefits as a whole, for dependants, for a wife, for adult dependants and children. It was recommended in the Beveridge Report and in the Coalition White Paper—and I have made provision for it in this Bill—that attention should be paid to the question of overlapping benefits. There are two things we must avoid in approaching this problem. The first is to be so mean and stingy as to bring upon us the justified indignation of the people we are dealing with and, second, to be so lax as to create the possibility of endless trouble so that there will be, in the end, unfairnesses beween one beneficiary and another which would bring the scheme into disrepute. My colleagues in the Government and I are looking at this matter most carefully. I do not make any apology for the fact that at this moment I am not in a position to make a fully detailed statement of the Government's proposals with regard to overlapping. We are considering this matter and for the moment I must leave it there except to say that there has been some misrepresentation, of which the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) has given some examples.
Let me say that while it is not possible to make a general or, even less, a detailed statement upon this matter, I do want to make it clear that there is no intention to use these powers so as to withdraw from an individual benefits accruing in respect of himself in different contingencies. I will give two examples, and must then ask the House to leave the matter there for the moment and take my word for it that the Government are giving it anxious and urgent consideration. Take a person Who is in receipt of a war pension and

might sustain an industrial accident. It is not the intention in any way to interfere with the separate basic benefits accruing to him under both schemes. Similarly, a war pensioner or an industrial pensioner under the new National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill becomes entitled in due course to a retirement pension. He can draw both in full. Those are two decisions which are clearly in line with what I have said. We want to be fair and to have equity in our approach.
The problem is that while laying down this general principle we have to decide whether there shall be any limit and if so, what limit, to the possible duplication of dependents' benefits when a man or woman is entitled to more than one benefit. It is a problem to which the Government are giving attention. Having given the House this assurance, I would say one word further. The hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) was concerned as to what safeguard there would be. As I have indicated, whenever we make Regulations under Clause 30 or under any other Clause they will be submitted to the Advisory Council. The Advisory Council will publish such Regulations in draft form so that it will be possible for every organisation, including the British Legion with which the hon. Member is associated, to make known their views. The utmost public discussion will be possible and finally the Regulations will come before this House of Commons. That, I think, is a real safeguard.

Major Legge-Bourke: The Minister has said that a person getting a war pension can draw a retirement pension also. Does that mean in every case, or are there to be exceptions?

Mr. Griffiths: When I say that a person gets the retirement pension I mean under the conditions in the Bill and assuming that he has qualified for it. In those circumstances he would get both pensions in full. Several questions have been asked about the local advisory committees to which I shall come in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the Assistance Board. He will appreciate that the whole future of the Assistance Board is involved in the legislation which will have to be considered by this House when we come to the other Measure of which I have spoken.
Before coming to the very great problem of the administration and the timetable of this scheme I would refer to one or two small points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring has raised the problem of " wholly or mainly maintained," both in the Committee stage and, as he indicated, in discussions with me, and I appreciate the point. It is well within my knowledge and experience. He has agreed that in the circumstances of the new Bill it would not—I use his words— be prudent to risk making a change just now. I have noted what he said, and will take it into consideration. I will say a word, when I deal with the administration, on the other problem in regard to the constitution of committees.
The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has made a speech tonight of the kind, character and-quality that we expect from him. We had the advantage of his association in Committee upstairs, and he has referred again to the question of death grants. I told him then that this question, and the responsibility of the Government for seeing to it that the grants when provided are not abused, was accepted and the matter is engaging the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Central Price Regulation Committee have given consideration to this and have presented reports to the President. They are, I understand, being asked to reconsider it. I can, therefore, assure him that the matter is not being allowed to drop but is being considered in very great detail indeed.
Several hon. Members have asked what the time-table is to which we are working. When the House gives the Third Reading to this Bill tonight, as I know it will, tomorrow starts a new task for me, for I have to create the administration under which this great scheme will work. I begin that task fully conscious of what has been said in every part of the House. I have said it myself. This scheme is the best we can do so far as legislation is concerned. When all is said and done, when the scheme is launched, its success or failure will depend upon the spirit in which it is administered. I know that perfectly well. Therefore, I have a task, and I want to say a word about that problem of administration. The time-

table is bound to be conditioned by my progress in creating the administration. I am not able to give an indication of when the scheme will come into operation. It is conditioned by the time-table according to which I create the administration. It is a big problem upon which I do not want to say anything until I have given full and mature consideration to it.
It will be realised that this scheme and the industrial injuries scheme closely linked with it have to be integrated in the administration with the associated national health scheme which will emerge out of the Bill which is now going through Committee, for the contributions which I charge includes an element of contribution for the health service scheme. There must therefore be synchronisation in bringing the schemes into operation. I cannot give a definite pledge. I think the House will realise how impossible and how imprudent it would be for me to give a definite date when I indicate, in briefest outline, the task of building the organisation which confronts me after the Third Reading.
We were under a pledge, and we had to get the Bill through according to a time table. I am very grateful to everybody, including the Members of the Opposition, who have cooperated in our time-table for the passage of the Bill through the House. It will be seen how essential that was, when I say that we have pledged ourselves to bring the new retirement pensions into operation before next winter. During the last few weeks, in the few intervals there have been, I and my advisers have looked at the problem to find out the earliest possible date on which we could begin to pay the new retirement pensions. It is complicated because it is not simply old age pensions but retirement pensions. There are 4,000,000 existing old age pensioners—not one million, as was stated by an hon. Member—including widows of 60 or over, who are beneficiaries. After making absolutely certain that it is the earliest date upon which we can do it, after looking carefully at the very big problem involved, we shall begin payments of the new retirement pensions to these 4,000,000 people in the first week of October next.
Let me indicate to the House the kind of organisation which we are aiming to build. First, there will be a headquarters staff here in London numbering about


400 or 500, a ministerial staff. There will be a central records office at Newcastle. Hon. Members in every part of the House will realise that we have to build a new organisation and move house at the same time, and it is not easy. The staff we are building up at the Central Records Office in Newcastle will number about 7,000. Then we propose to build a central regional organisation in Wales for Wales as a unit, including Monmouthshire. My Scottish friends will be glad to know that we shall have a central regional organisation for Scotland and Scotland will be treated as one unit. Now, I come to England. I think it is the right way to travel, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, from Wales, via Scotland into England—anyhow, this is where most Welshmen and Scotsmen seem to end.
In England we shall have nine regional offices, corresponding largely to the areas that were regions for the purpose of Civil Defence. Each of these regional offices will be headed by a regional controller assisted by two deputy regional controllers. The regional controller will be an officer of high standing. That is essential, for we want to work as far as possible and practicable with the utmost measure of delegation. They will have a staff of between 50 and 100. These regional offices in the main will be directing and controlling agencies covering the local offices in the area. Then there will be the local offices,.the number of which I shall not at the moment. estimate. The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) talked about hundreds, another hon. Member talked about thousands. We have to work it out. The first thing we have to do is to create a regional organisation, and then let the regional controller and his staff, with assistance, plan out the organisation of local offices' within the region. We shall therefore have what is finally decided as being the necessary number of local offices.

Sir W. Smithers: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the total administrative number?

Mr. Griffiths: No, I thought I had made it clear that I cannot. The general policy regarding the work to be done at the local offices will be that nothing that can be done there with reasonable efficiency will be left to be done anywhere else. I use these words, having chosen them carefully

as a kind of instruction to fix up the local offices. I realise perfectly well that these local offices must be places staffed: by people who will have to take responsible decisions. I do not want them to be merely people who take a case and send it somewhere else. We must have people who can take decisions, or the scheme will break down. That is the organisation side. Then we have to create a new system of adjudication, with a new machinery. We have to set up our tribunals. We have to set up machinery for commissioners. That has to be ready when the scheme comes into operation.
Finally, there are the advisory bodies. There is the National Advisory Committee which I hope to set up as soon as it is possible to make the appointments when the Bill goes through. There are the local advisory committees, which are organisations to which I attach the greatest importance. We want to make them a" widely representative as possible in order that they may be the channel through which we will get to know, not only at the local offices but at the regional offices and the centre, how the people regard the job we are doing. Through them can come complaints and suggestions and and comments. Through those local advisory committees we hope—and I am sure our hopes will be fully justified—to secure the full cooperation of people who have a wide experience in this field and who will be able to bring their wisdom, and particularly their knowledge of local conditions, to assist us and to assist the local offices of the Ministry in the great job it has to do.
That is the machinery. I know perfectly well that the machinery will work well or ill and it will make the success or failure of the scheme not only by becoming efficient—it must be that—but by providing the place where people can go, not in fear and trembling, but to obtain guidance.

Sir W. Smithers: It will break down.

Mr. Griffiths: As a matter of fact we have this Bill because the present system has broken down. I am having discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works. We both talk the same language, though with different accents. He and I know perfectly well that so far as it is possible within our rower in these difficult days, these social


security offices must be made worthy of the place they will fill in the life of the community, and that the officers who are there must come to be regarded as friends of people who are in trouble and adversity, who go to them for guidance, and to discuss their personal problems. They will go to these places to be helped and told how they should claim benefit. That is how we hope to do it. We are considering what ways to adopt in order to find out what kind of service the people want, whether they want or do not want a home service, and so on. I am convinced that we can do that in the spirit which I have described.
In reply to the hon. Member for The High Peak and other hon. Members, may I say I know that this scheme of social security cannot succeed in a vacuum? It cannot succeed in an unplanned society. I have never had any illusions about that, and have never recommended this scheme to the House, or to the country, as something which can stand alone. The party to which I belong, and to which I am proud to belong, in submitting its programme to the country last year, pledged itself to bring about these great Measures and to give them high priority, because they are worthy of high priority, and because the people need them. They need that sense of security and, as I said on the Second Reading, it is not security that paralyses the will, it is insecurity. For those reasons we decided to give them a high priority, as we stated in our pamphlet, " Let us face the future," which the nation accepted. Now we are making our future.
I do not regard this Bill, which I ask the House to accept tonight, and for which I ask a unanimous Third Reading— except for the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)—as being anything but part of a plan of social progress. Sir William Beveridge stated that social security can only succeed if it is part of a larger plan of social progress. I know that. I know that the work I am doing depends on the success of the work which my colleagues are doing in laying the foundation for a new economic order. But when I put this Bill and the other Bills side by side with what my colleagues are doing, I believe that, woven together into a pattern, they can lay the foundation of that new and better Britain.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PURCHASE TAX (EXEMPTIONS)

Resolved:

"That the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) (No.2) Order. 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 627; dated 1st May, 1946, made by the Treasury under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd May, be approved."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

9.20 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of this Bill is to enable the trustees of the British Museum to-lend the Lacock Abbey copy of the Magna Carta to the Congress Library in Washington for a period of two years. The consent of Parliament is necessary to this because the British Museum, under the British Museum Act of 1924, can only make loans of its exhibits to galleries, museums, and exhibitions in this country, and not abroad. The British Museum, as I think most hon. Members know, has three copies of Magna Carta. Two came to them under the Cotton gift in 1700, but it was part of the terms of the gift that neither copy was to be sent abroad. Since then, through the generosity of Miss Talbot, another copy, know as the Lacock Abbey copy, has now come into the possession of the nation. No such limitation applies to this copy. The United States having expressed a desire to have a copy of Magna Carta on loan, this Bill will enable the Lacock Abbey copy to be sent.
This copy was issued 10 years after the gentlemen whose effigies adorn this Chamber had forced King John at Runnymede to sign the original Charter —

Sir Patrick Hannon: May I interrupt? I am interested in this copy. Do I understand the Financial Secretary to be supporting the decision taken in another place that the Charta should be lent and that the "h"Is not to be retained? Is he going to murder the aspirate in the title?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Fortunately—perhaps largely due to the work of the gentlemen whose effigies are round this Chamber— this is a free country. My hon. Friend can put the " h "In if he likes or, like a very distinguished Member of this House who adorned its Debates some years ago, he can drop it entirely if he wishes. No one can say him nay I am using the spelling which has been adopted ' but I do not wish to foist it on any hon. or right hon. Member.

Sir P. Hannon: I am sorry to interrupt again. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that in the Court Rolls of 1279, the historical significance of which, no doubt, he will, recall at once, the Charta was spelled —

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I think if the hon. Gentleman desires to speak, he had better seek to catch my eye.

Sir P. Hannon: Thank you, Sir.

Mr. Glenvil Hail: I have no doubt, Sir, that if my hon. Friend does catch your eye he will elaborate the point he is now making. My job here tonight is no more than to move, as briefly as possible, the Second Reading of this Measure. I was saying that owing to the kindness of Miss Talbot this copy has now come into the possession of the British nation. It is proposed under the terms of this Bill, which has already been passed in another place, to lend it for a period of two years to the United States for exhibition in the Congress Library at Washington.
The United States takes a great interest in this particular document. I understand that the Founding Fathers of the United States relied on this particular document, rather than on the original copy issued ten years before, for many of the principles upon which the constitution of the United States was founded. Therefore, it is apt that this particular copy should go, and I am sure that the House will agree to accept this Measure permit ting this.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. David Eccles: I am sure there will be no opposition to this Bill, and I am very glad to associate my hon. Friends on this side with the tribute which the Financial Secretary has paid to Miss Talbot. Miss Talbot gave to the nation her copy of Magna Carta, which

had been in the possession of her family for upwards of 700 years, and her munificence did not stop there. As the House probably knows, she also made over to the National Trust the abbey and village of Lacock. I suppose we shall debate to the end of time which is the most beautiful English village, but, laying aside my personal predilection for Wiltshire and my affection for the part of the country which I represent, I do not think there could be found in the United Kingdom a more lovely group of buildings, taking the village and abbey together, set in a more lovely countryside.
Miss Talbot, having given away her real estate, might have kept, or sold for a great price, this copy of Magna Carta. She might have got over half a million dollars for it. It was the only copy in private hands of the most famous document relating to English liberties, but she chose to give it to the nation. If any hon. Member should ever be tempted, and I am sure that none ever will, to think poorly of the voluntary spirit, he might ruminate upon this act. I could wish that this copy had stayed at Lacock in the keeping of the National Trust, but centralisaion is in fashion and London stretches out its tentacles and grasps all the valuable things from the provinces. Miss Talbot was persuaded, so it was stated in another place, that this manuscript could only be properly looked after in London. It was said that, as soon as it had been conveyed to the British Museum, it would be absolutely safe and free from all risk. But what happened? Within a few hours of Miss Talbot making her gift, His Majesty's Embassy in Washington was applying through the Foreign Office for the manuscript to be sent across the Atlantic.
I am aware that Mr. Speaker is one of the trustees of the British Museum, and I have no doubt this request from Washington came as a surprise to the trustees, but what a symbolic story it is. Here is freedom's charter, wheedled out of the countryside by a high-sounding plea that the stuff and form of liberty will be safe in London, and, no sooner does the country cousin get to London than she is to be packed up and shipped off 3,000 miles away from her promised refuge. Miss Talbot was quite right to agree that the document should go to the United States. I think its presence there might do some good at the present time. In


that country, founded on a desire to escape from the arbitrary control of government, there is now a regrettable doubt about the strength of our love of liberty, and some antidote is needed to Socialist professors and other illiberal exports. I can well imagine the Lord President of the Council and his colleagues jumping at the opportunity to despatch across the Atlantic so signal and salutary an instrument of.decontamination. We on this side of the House applaud that decision.
I would like to say a word about the principle of allowing the treasures of the British Museum to go abroad. In my judgment, we should only do this as an exception and not as a habit. The Museum possesses many priceless and indeed, unique treasures and it would be unwise to have any number of them running round the world on journeys where the risk of loss or damage must occur, however well they are packed and however well they are looked after. I hope that after this Bill there will be no pressure to bring in a more general Bill to give the trustees of the Museum power to accede to any request coming from abroad. We ought to treat each case on its merits. I was delighted to hear the Financial Secretary state that the other two copies of Magna Carta now in the possession of the Museum could not properly be sent abroad owing to the terms of the gift of Sir Henry Cotton, I think it was, at the end of the 17th century. I only wish that the Minister of Health, when he was framing his proposals for dealing with the endowments of voluntary hospitals, had had a similar respect for conditions attached to the gifts.
I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Sir P. Hannon) is going to say about the spelling of " Carta."In my opinion, their lordships in another place very properly removed from the text of the Bill the offending aspirate, the vulgar interloper in the word " Carta."I trust that His Majesty's Government will not in any spirit of tit for tat, having regard to what happened to the Borrowing Bill, put down an Amendment to restore that " h " because if they do I must say that I shall come to the Committee armed with all the classical and mediaeval references to support the good conservative proposition

that the " h " which King John and his subjects dispensed with at Runnymede should not be restored today by the Financial Secretary and his friends at Transport House. I am glad this document is going to America for two years. I do not think it is the only one of our liberties temporarily out of our keeping. I am sure that the United States will restore this particular treasure to us at the end of the two years and I have a feeling that, about the same time, the British people may demand back all their other liberties.

9.33 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) that we ought to be particularly careful about the extent to which we allow our ancient collections in the British Museum, or elsewhere, to be sent abroad. I think he is perfecly correct in the view he takes of the importance of retaining in this country our own treasures under the careful custody of our own local organisations. But, in the matter of the spelling of Magna Charta, I am entirely a" variance with my hon. Friend. In another place, this question was discussed as a matter of very serious and Imperial importance. Indeed, it was much talked about, and my Noble Friend Lord Soul-bury, in a letter to "The Times," staggered me with his research into the ancient writings when he mentioned the preference of Catullus for dispensing with the " h " and spelling it " Carta."I ask the House, what Catullus in the 4th century had to do with the spelling of Magna Charta.

Mr. Speaker: That would be a more appropriate point for the Committee stage.

Sir P. Hannon: I am always entirely obedient to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but this matter of orthography has been raised, and as I have had some modest association with this matter, I would submit, with great respect to you, Sir, that it cannot be treated like that. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham I am making no complaint about our treasures going abroad, but if this document goes abroad I want it to be spelt correctly.

Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that this point would be more suitable for an Amendment of Title in Committee.

Sir P. Hannon: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will put down that Amendment to the Title at the appropriate time.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I noticed a discrepancy in the remarks of the Financial Secretary, and I would like to ask for an explanation. He quoted the British Museum Act; perhaps he would refresh the memory of the House as to the date.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The date was 1924.

Mr. Keeling: He quoted the British Museum Act of 1924 which prevents any copy of the Charter from being sent abroad. He went on to say that two of their three copies were part of the gift of Sir Henry Cotton, I think in the year 1700, and it was an expressed condition in the gift of those copies to the British Museum that they should not be sent abroad, Surely, the Government are not at this stage of their existence going to take any notice of conditions of charitable gifts. Surely, they will base all their faith upon an Act of Parliament. I do not see how they can base it on both.

Mr. Eccles: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I would point out that there are three copies of Magna Carta in the British Museum, and two are in the Cotton gift which have nothing whatever to do with Miss Talbot's copy.

Mr. Keeling: I think that has cleared it up.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I hope I made that clear in my speech. Actually, there is another copy in Lincoln Cathedral, but I did not refer to it because it is not in the Bill and we were dealing with one particular copy.

Mr. Keeling: If I am wrong I apologise. We shall see in HANSARD tomorrow.
One would have expected this Bill to have originated in another place because, after all, it was the Barons who were responsible for Magna Carta. Another place also took the heavy responsibility upon itself in 1938 of trying to alter Magna Carta. That attempt was very properly rejected by this House. I think it is appropriate that we should lend a copy of Magna Carta to America because American law has been built up on English law, and Magna Carta is just as much

a part of American law as it is of English law. However, I would like to make a suggestion to the Government. When this copy of Magna Carta comes safely back from America, would they consider lending it to our Eastern ally who, perhaps, may have even greater need of it?

9.39 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May I take this opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend upon the clarity and brevity of his speech in moving the Second Reading, and of the legislation which we are considering? When this Bill is carried, as I have no doubt it will be, one more of our national treasures will make a transatlantic crossing but, unlike other treasures which have gone never to return, the document in this case will come back to this country in two years' time. The fact that legislation is required to enable the Lacock Abbey edition of Magna Carta to go to the United States of America on loan is an indication of the importance of the concession which this House is now being asked to make. No strings are attached to this loan, and no bargaining of any kind is involved. This loan will, I hope, consolidate the cultural relationship with our American friends. I would not be so temerarious as the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) in suggesting that the despatch of this valuable document will have a decontaminating effect upon our American Allies. I do say that the strengthening of the links between this country and the United States.of America is a very desirable thing. International relations and mutual understanding do not entirely depend on treaties and financial agreements, but also on mutual appreciation of our common heritage.
It is right, and in my view appropriate, that the country in which "The four freedoms " were eloquently asserted by that great figure Franklin Roosevelt should be the guardian, if only for a period of two years, of that historic document of which, in a sense, the four freedoms are the spiritual descendants. I do not associate myself with the argument which has been put forward, that the proposed loan should be regarded with grave suspicion, and that the document should be kept here so that Americans will be compelled to spend American dollars to come here to see it. If by a loan of this kind we can educate peoples


in other lands to share our conception of freedom, or at least to understand it, the proposal under consideration is in the highest degree worth while. Even in these hard-boiled days, and in a hard-boiled country like the United States of America, that is a factor not to be ignored. This country may not lead the world in various aspects of commercial or industrial endeavour, but there are respects in which we must try to lead the world morally, by emphasising those aspects of our common heritage without which the world would be a bleak habitation. This particular proposal is one which I hope may, in special cases and on very special occasions, be repeated in future.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Maude: I may be the only person in the House tonight who, in the Library of Congress not many years ago, saw a copy of Magna Carta. It was splendidly kept, and very much admired. Everybody in the House tonight can rest assured that the librarian of Congress will look after this document in a manner beyond reproach. Indeed, I would like to add what is sometimes forgotten here, I think, that there are many things in the United States, particularly on the Eastern seaboard, which make an Englishman, and a Scotsman as well, feel at home. For instance, in Philadelphia one can go into the parish church and find old silver, the chalice and so on; in Mount Vernon, Washington's home, there is beautiful English furniture; in Williamsburg one feels oneself in a very beautiful English village. Sometimes Americans do not convey to us exactly how strongly they feel, although it is not always easy to say what one really feels about a foreign country. It was best put, I think—it may be useful to repeat this tonight—when Admiral Sampson, replying to a speech delivered by Admiral Jackie Fisher who proposed die health of the American Navy, was a little embarrassed what to say about the British. He rose to his feet and said what is so real, and so sensible:
Gentlemen, I give you a toast. Here's to that damned fine old hen which hatched the American eagle.
I can assure the House that sending this copy of Magna Carta to America is an excellent thing, and the Goverment should be congratulated upon it.

Question, put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next— [Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

LICENSING PLANNING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Further provisions as to committees and sub-committees.)

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, at the beginning, to insert:
[(5) A licensing planning committee shall have power, and shall be deemed always to have had power, to pay to the secretary of any sub-committee appointed under subsection (1) of this section, or under subsection (3) of the said section ten, such remuneration as may be approved by the Secretary of State, and to defray, in such circumstances as may be so approved, expenses incurred in 
The introduction of this new Subsection (5) here is necessary because the Bill was promoted in another place. It provides for the payment of secretaries of sub-committees.

Amendment, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

DEMOBILISATION (RELEASE GROUPS, EAST AFRICA)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

9.48 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: The subject I bring up tonight is one which I feel comes not unsuitably after we have just agreed to send our first charter of freedom to America. It is a subject, I


think, on which there should be no party differences in so far as the defence of our Empire is a non-party matter. There appears to be some lack of liaison between the Departments affecting men who ought to be coming back to this country to be demobilised, and I submit that that is fair game. I wish to call attention to the delay affecting release groups 29 to 31 from East Africa. This story begins, as far as I am concerned, on 12th February when my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) put a written Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. At that time there was some discussion on the matter of delay in Group 27, but that was due to reasons into which I do not propose to enter tonight. In his answer, the Secretary of State for War made a remark which is of great importance. He said:
It follows that there is no reason to suppose that the arrival of men in Group 28 or later from East Africa will be delayed beyond the dates laid down for their Groups."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 47.]
The next thing in this story is that on 1st May, the " East African Standard " published the following information:
 Headquarters East Africa Command announces that the next shipping opportunity for personnel proceeding to the United Kingdom for release is not expected to be before early June, arriving in the United Kingdom in the latter half of that month. In consequence, it is regretted that officers of Age and Service Groups 29 and 30 and other ranks of group 30 will not arrive in the United Kingdom until after the dates for release of their groups. In addition, it is possible that officers and other ranks of Age and Service Group 31 may also arrive in the United Kingdom a few days after the period set for the release of their group. Headquarters East Africa Command has made and is continuing to make every effort to obtain earlier shipping and appreciates that this delay will cause disappointment to many but trusts that they will understand that it is due to world wide causes. The fullest use is being made of available air passages to clear personnel now awaiting despatch.
That, by itself, sounds quite innocent and perhaps understandable, but, at the same time, troops in East Africa were given to understand that a contingent was going from East Africa to here, for the Victory Parade. I hope that this short Debate will not turn too much on the pros and cons of having a Victory Parade now. That matter was dealt with during an earlier Debate in this House and I hope that it will not come up too much tonight.

I submit that this House will be very much more interested to consider whether or not it is right that the release of many men, officers and other ranks, should be delayed in order to get what I imagine is a small contingent home for the Victory Parade.
My contention is that that was an unwise decision, but I have another point to make. I believe that one of the main criticisms to which the Government are open is the lack of liaison among Departments. Having read the newspaper report about shipping, I made an investigation to find ships for the Secretary of State for War. The first I came across was the ss. " Antenor ", which was to bring back the South African contingent for the Victory Parade. In the same paper, the " East African Times," a report appeared saying that the Union Government had decided that the South African contingent should be flown home in 18 Dakotas. Presumably, space on the " Antenor " was not available. I think the South African contingent consists of 213 men and 19 women, and there should therefore have been a considerable space left on the " Antenor."
There was another ship, the ss. " Mantola," which has been advertised in the East African papers as likely to sail for the United Kingdom on or about 15th May. I asked a Question of the Minister of Transport about both those ships, and as regards the ss. " Mantola,"I asked him what cargo and classes of passengers the ship carried. He replied that it carried cabin class passengers and a mixed general cargo. When I suggested that this might have some connection with troops in East Africa coming home, he replied that the supplementary question hardly appeared to be connected with the Question. That seemed to me to be pretty unsatisfactory. I then put a Question regarding the ss. " Antenor."I asked the right hon. Gentleman to what use the ss. " Antenor " would now be put, and he replied:
The ' Antenor ' was scheduled to embark Victory Parade contingents not only from South Africa but also from East Africa and Aden, and is still carrying out this part of her programme. The space made available in the ' Antenor ' as a result of the decision to send the South African contingent by air has been utilised by the authorities in South and East Africa to embark service personnel awaiting passage to this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1046; Vol. 422, c. 1475.]


Two points arise there. First, it rather seems that the s.s. " Antenor " was bringing the Victory Parade contingent from East Africa as well as from South Africa, and secondly, that having been released by South Africa, it was then sent back to East Africa. I should like to know whether that is the case. I asked a further supplementary question of the Minister of Transport, and I suggested that he should get in touch with the Secretary of State for War. He replied by suggesting that I should put a Question to the Secretary of State for War, which I had already done, and received the answer on which most of the facts are based. The Question I had put was about how many people were delayed, and how many men of the three Services serving overseas would be delayed in transit to the United Kingdom for release as a result of contingents being brought home for the Victory celebrations. In reply, the Financial Secretary said that, so far as he was aware, the only people so affected were just over 600 Army officers and other ranks serving in East Africa; about half of them would be delayed some three weeks beyond their release dates, and the remainder about one week. He very much regretted that the release of these men should have been delayed, but unfortunately it was impossible to make additional transport available without very much more serious repercussions on the repatriation of other Service personnel due for release. There was one further Question which I asked in conjunction with two other hon.. Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. Member" for Kelvingrove (Mr. J. L. Williams), on 21st May. The answer which the Secretary of State for War gave seemed to ignore the fact that he had, on 12th February, promised that there would be no further delays after Group 28. He entirely ignored that and said:
It was considered essential that the contingents for the Victory March from East Africa, Aden, Mauritius, Seychelles, St. Helena and High Commission Territories, should reach this country in time to take part in the parade. In order to ensure this, it was necessary to give them priority over other personnel due for repatriation to this country and this unfortunately involved some delay in the release of about 600 men serving in East Africa."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 163.]

I should like the Financial Secretary to give me answers to the following questions. When was it known, first of all, that the Victory Parade contingent would be required from East Africa? Secondly, when was the decision made to delay the release of the officers and other ranks from East Africa? Thirdly, when the decision was made to fly the South African contingent home, what steps were taken to make the space in the S.S. " Antenor " available for East African troops? Fourthly, what steps do the Government propose to take in the future to ensure, when they have these consultations about releases, that the Minister of Transport is represented at the conferences, so that it may be certain that the shipping situation, and the air transport situation, too, are kept up to date? I hope that when the Financial Secretary to the War Office replies he will give answers to these questions. I am not trying to make party capital out of this, and I hope hon. Members on the other side of the House too will speak. What I am trying to do is to make certain that there is no lack of liaison which we can prevent in this House, and which, I believe, it is our duty to prevent.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —(Mr. Joseph Henderson.)

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Paget: It is not merely in East Africa that troops have been delayed—troops due for repatriation to this country—by reason of contingents travelling for the Victory Parade. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has said, this is not an occasion to discuss the desirability or otherwise of having a victory parade. That was discussed some time ago on an Adjournment Motion by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), and on that occasion some of us took the view that what we described as pompous military parades were somewhat out of place when, in a larger sense, what we had fought for had not been achieved, and when there was great suffering throughout the world. The Home Secretary in reply said:


This will not be merely a pompous military parade. This is out effort to show our gratitude to the men who have served us so well."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1946, Vol. 421, c. 2941.]
I would ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if this is the way to show gratitude to the men who have served us so well. There are men serving in East Africa, there are men in Ceylon and India due for repatriation, who have looked forward passionately to release, as those of us who have served abroad remember. Their wives and families are as passionately awaiting the return of their loved ones. Is it the way to show our gratitude that these people's hopes should be frustrated in order to have a Victory Parade? I have a letter here from India which says:
Three weeks ago we were given our clearance schedules. We were cleared, inoculated and vaccinated, and told to stand by. Just over a week ago our clearance chits were returned, and we were told to resume work. Now a signal has come in to the effect that we are not expected to start until June, and those who came 12 days before us left six weeks ago. Meantime, they are sending Indian troops to England for the sole purpose of participating in the. victory parade. You can imagine how we fee! having been cleared and told to stand by and then to have it all cancelled.
I have communicated that to the Financial Secretary to the War Office.
It is abundantly clear that a shocking mistake has been made here. There has been a shocking blunder. We are not blaming the Minister. This is not the sort of decision which is taken at Ministerial level, but if it is brought to the attention of this House the Government should make very clear what they think of this sort of mistake. I would urge the hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, to forget about a War Office brief, and answer, as the late Under-Secretary of State for Air used to answer when this sort of blunder happened, and make a frank confession of the blunder to the House. This is a shocking blunder, and it is absolutely outrageous that our gratitude to those who have served this country should be shown by delaying their release in order to make room for people to take part in a parade.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): It is abundantly clear from the facts which have been so very lucidly

demonstrated by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), that this is, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has just said, a major blunder. It is a blunder which involves delaying the return to their homes of no fewer than 600 men in the Army. The only point to which I desire to draw attention, is that this blunder is not merely the sort of blunder which is perhaps inevitable in any large scale organisation, but a blunder which is the result of a deliberate decision'. My hon and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely has referred to a series of Questions which were put to the Secretary of State for War, and I invite the attention of the House to an answer I received in reply to a supplementary question I asked the Secretary of State for War:
 Does that answer mean that as a result of a deliberate decision of the War Office the demobilisation of 600 men has been held up in order to facilitate the arrival of contingents for 8th June?
MR. LAWSON: Yes, that is so, and I very much regret that the result has been such as it has, but it was not foreseen that it would be the result at that particular time. I have taken steps to see that there is no repetition of this incident in any other part of the world."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 164.]
That makes it clear that the. War Office deliberately decided that it was more important to secure adequate representation from certain parts of the world in the Victory Parade, than to secure the prompt repatriation of 600 men. That decision seems to me to be wholly wrong. It means a delay in the return to normal life of 600 men; it means also a delay in the return to normal domestic life to some thousands of people in this country. That decision is wholly misjudged and wholly undesirable. Therefore, I join with the hon. Member for Northampton in asking the Financial Secretary frankly to admit that it was a blunder. I hope that he will not seek to justify it or palliate it in any way. These 600 men, like the rest of the Army, have been told that their release and repatriation would be deferred only on grounds of operational necessity.
Therefore, it seems to me and I am sure it will seem to the House right that these men who have been defrauded of a certain period at home should receive compensation in some form or other from the War Office. I hope that the Financial


Secretary will not only express vague and no doubt perfectly genuine regrets, but will also indicate he intends to give these men some tangible compensation.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Driberg: As I think my hon. Friend knows, I did happen a few months ago to run into the Secretary of State for War when he was overseas visiting troops, and I remember very clearly how many questions they plied him with and how he answered them, and that one of the points on which his listeners pressed him most eagerly and most pathetically was the absolute undertaking that men serving in distant theatres overseas should always be brought home in time to be demobilised with their groups within the proper dates. Although that undertaking was not absolute in the sense that there was a total and complete guarantee—it was subject to operational considerations—none the less there was never any hint that it would be violated for some purpose which, after all, however worthy, is purely ceremonial.
It may seem a very small thing to some people that soldiers should be delayed for just a few weeks—because it will not be more than a few weeks—but an hon. Member opposite spoke about the return to ordinary domestic life, and I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who, we are glad to know, is a happily married man, knows how, after men have been overseas for three or four years—perhaps all through the jungles of Burma, before going to Africa at all—they literally count the days until their release. After all, precise release dates have been announced. Take the case of men in Group 30, who I think are some of the men concerned. I think I am right in saying that Group 30 should all be out by 15th or 16th June. That is the concluding date of then-release period. If they had got on to the ships and been in this country that is when they would have been released. As it is they are still stuck in Mombasa or Entebbe. I happen to know of one man in Group 30, a company sergeant-major whose wife and family at home in Essex have been preparing a special holiday for a week or two after the date on which he was expected home for demobilisation. They have booked seaside accommodation somewhere. I do not suppose they have booked the railway tickets which, unfortunately, will cost them more now; but they had

been looking forward greatly to this holiday on a particular date. All the plans which they had made will have to be cancelled, and we all know how difficult it is to book holiday accommodation anywhere now. The whole thing has been completely messed up and washed out by this decision.
I did not get up merely to repeat what has already been said or to recriminate about the past, but to ask my hon. Friend if it is not possible, even at this late date, in some way and to some extent to repair the harm that has been done. If it:.s possible, as the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) who raised this matter said, for the Union Government to fly their Victory Parade contingent to this country in a number of Dakotas, is it absolutely impossible for His Majesty's Government to fly these few hundred men, who are going to be delayed two or three weeks in East Africa., to this country? There are a number of Dakotas available around the world nowadays. It should not be absolutely impossible, I think, to fly them here instead of asking them to wait for a leisurely ship which might not leave East Africa within the next few weeks.

10.14 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger): The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has urged me to assume the white mantle and like one Secretary of State for War on one occasion to " come clean " about it. He also advised me to model my conduct in giving my reply tonight on that estimable colleague of mine, the present Minister of Food. I prefer, if the House will permit me to do so, to state my case in my own way, and if I still fall short of my hon. Friend the Minister of Food, then I am very sorry about it. At any rate, I want to state the facts of the case as I know them, and to present them fairly, if possible, assuring the House that we are not making major blunders; although obviously in such a vast machine as we administer at the War Office, it would be idle to assume that we are 100 per cent, right, and that we can always do the right thing in the right way. The hon. Member for Northampton, in speaking of the particular case raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), suggested that this was not an isolated case, but that troops had been.


delayed from coming home at their proper time after their proper release date in India. As far as I know, no other case like this has arisen which has delayed troops returning to this country for their proper release dates.

Mr. Paget: The men I mentioned were from India.

Mr. Bellenger: If I may say so, I think my hon. Friend rather exaggerated the position in India. It is true that in the early days of demobilisation shipping was a factor in getting these men away for their release. Up to now we have overcome most of these difficulties, and I think the release scheme generally is working according to schedule. As far as I know, judging by the letters I receive at the War Office from Members of Parliament there are no serious complaints other than this one about men being held up by the avoidable action of the War Office.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to ask how can he say that the world shipping situation was satisfactory, and there is no trouble about demobilisation? If that is so why is it that headquarters, East African Command, published a letter such as I read out?

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think I did say that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is rather twisting my words, but what I said was in reference to a remark made by the hon. Member for Northampton that with the exception of this particular case the shipping position was not holding up men whether they be in India or elsewhere who were due for release, and that generally speaking the officers and men were being brought to this country for demobilisation according to schedule. As far as this case is concerned, I admit that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who raised the matter, and other Members, and particularly those who have been delayed in coming home according to their scheduled date for release, have some cause for complaint. When the matter was first brought to my attention, by reading the cutting which the hon. and gallant Member read to the House tonight, I was seriously concerned about it, because I realised only too well the implications of that delay. Whether the decision to hold the Victory Parade was right or wrong

is not the issue tonight. That has been settled. Generally speaking, I think that the Victory Parade will be accepted as an expression of the nation's gratitude to members of the Fighting Forces, and others, for their efforts in bringing the war to a successful conclusion. It was our purpose to get as many contingents from all theatres of war as we possibly could. It was felt that it would be wrong to exclude any of those who had taken part in the war from distant theatres from this Parade if we could possibly get them here. East Africa, which is a Command a little off the beaten track, was also included in the plans drawn up for representation in the Parade.
When my right hon. Friend made his statement to the House on 12th February, he made it in good faith. He made it six days before the date of the Victory Parade had been announced, and long before the details of the march had been prepared. Therefore, I do not think that my right hon. Friend, in making that statement, was doing anything other than making it in good faith. But, as it turned out, it did not quite follow the lines he expressed in his answer.

Major Legge-Bourke: The date was announced six days after the statement made by the Minister, but surely the Cabinet had been discussing the matter. Surely it was in the wind.

Mr. Bellenger: I am not in possession of Cabinet secrets, but I should imagine that this matter would have come before members of the Cabinet in various ways. When my right hon. Friend gave his answer he was not aware of the details of the plans for gathering various contingents from overseas for the Parade. When he made his statement he made it believing that no groups of men due for release after Group 28 would be delayed. As it turned out, a certain number were delayed. I must admit that the decision was a War Office decision, and that in that respect it might perhaps have been a little bit different if all the implications had been realised at the time. Whether other shipping could have been laid on— and I do not think it could—I feel it might have been possible to cut down the contingent itself. Actually, the figures of those who will be delayed are not as bad as has been stated tonight. The figure is not 600, but a smaller number—no officers, and 227 other ranks.
That is bad enough, I admit, for those who have had their release date delayed, but their delay will not be as long as was at first anticipated. I am informed that it will be approximately four to 12 days in the case of officers, and nine days in the case of other ranks. I know that even nine days or four to 12 days are very considerable in the lives and expectations of those who have borne the burden of war overseas and want to get out and back to their families as soon as ever possible. I must, therefore, apologise for the fact that these numbers—fewer than the 600 mentioned—have been delayed for this period although it is not as long as the men out there thought it might have been.

Mr. Boyd Carpenter: Are these figures of delay in addition to the loss of their disembarkation leave?

Mr. Bellenger: No, I do not think so. I imagine that when these officers and men come home they will have their 56 days plus overseas service leave.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But the Financial Secretary is well aware, I am sure, that personnel returning to this country prior to the date of demobilisation are entitled to disembarkation leave whereas, on the other hand, if their date of repatriation is subsequent to the date when they are due for demobilisation they lose that leave.

Mr. Bellenger: I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman has stated the position quite accurately. Subject to correction I believe that those coming home for release do not get disembarkation leave in addition to release leave; but if I am wrong in that respect I will do my best to see that these men get their full entitlement of leave, whenever they come home.
I think I have indicated clearly that although the War Office has made no major blunder such as hon. Gentlemen have suggested, the fact remains that by a decision of the War Office to give priority to the Victory Parade contingent from East Africa delay has occurred in the release of a certain number of officers and men for a certain period. The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member

for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) was whether we could not do as South Africa has done and place some Dakotas at the disposal of these East African personnel. I do not think that is possible although I am quite prepared to look into the question with my colleague at the Air Ministry. What actually happened when the South African Government placed, I think, 18 Dakotas at the disposal of their contingent was that it did certainly create a number of vacant places on the ss. "Antenor" which were filled by personnel—also due for release or passage home for other reasons—waiting in South Africa for a ship. To that extent I am afraid South Africa benefited over East Africa.
I do not think it is necessary, to use a classic phrase, to go into a long rigmarole about this matter. The fact remains that by a decision of the War Office a certain amount of hardship has been caused for a certain number of men. I regret this very much indeed and in so far as this is a lesson for the future I can assure hon Gentlemen in all parts of the House that if these or similar matters are ever brought to my attention I will do my best to see that such a thing does not happen again. I am glad to say that it has not happened so far as I am aware in any other overseas centre.

Major Legge-Bourke: What about liaison between the Ministries?

Mr. Bellenger: It was not a question of liaison between the War Office and the Ministry of Transport. Ships do not run from East Africa like trains in England. There is only a limited amount of transport for the limited personnel that we know are due to come home on certain dates, and I am afraid it was impossible to put any other ship at the disposal of East Africa because there was no other ship in that neighbourhood to permit these 300-odd officers and men to come home in time.

Major Legge-Bourke: Who sailed in the ss. "Mantola"?

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Seven Minutes past Ten o'Clock.